Evolution against the secular: when the Ministry of Education considers emotions

256 תגובות

1. "Abraze yourself and then abrade others"
   Unlike religion, science is not driven by ideological considerations, but by a pure desire to understand the universe. Science constantly compares its theories with reality! And if reality contradicts the theory, then the theory is abandoned or revised. On the other hand, no fact will make a religious fundamentalist change his view.
   1. The wonderful technology that was born based on scientific theories testifies to about a thousand witnesses that science is walking the right way!! It is not possible that such a wonderful and complex technology is based on wrong theories!!
   2. There is no contradiction between the theory of evolution or the big bang theory and the belief (...) in the existence of God. A believer (like me) can claim that God embedded in reality natural laws that caused the universe to form and develop as described by the big bang theory and life to form and develop as described by the theory of evolution.
   Both of these wonderful theories have "holes", but they rely on a tremendous abundance of observations that prove that they constitute a correct general description of the history of the universe and of life. For those who doubt evolution, I strongly recommend reading the book "Why evolution is true". For those who doubt the Big Bang theory, I recommend reading the book "The Universe According to Modern Physics" (the author is a religious professor...).
   3. There is definitely a "conflict" between these teachings and the creation myths of the Bible (there are two creation stories in the Bible that contradict each other).
   4. The Bible and the Talmud are full of internal contradictions that even a half-witted person will notice: these are double stories whose contents clearly contradict each other, stories that are contrary to reality, contradictions in names, numbers and the number of years! Not to mention the many anti-moral (not to mention anti-human) laws that appear there. I suggest to all the religious quarrelers here to go to the website "Deat Emet" and the website "Freedom" and prove that the Torah and the Talmud are not the "words of God", but the words of ancient humans about God and reality.
   5. The Christian church learned (after many years of darkness) to change its religious and moral concepts in order to adapt to the changing reality. In contrast to this, most of our rabbis, and especially the "repenters", invest supreme efforts to bring us back in time. And not even a "repentant" asks them: why didn't any great scientist or inventor come out of the midrash? Why were we a lowly and beaten nation when almost all of us, for many hundreds of years (before the Enlightenment period and the founding of Zionism), were "Orthodox"?

   All those who passionately argue here against the musings of the religious fundamentalists fall into the trap:
   Instead of defending science, quote them from the Bible and the Talmud and ask them to deal with the internal contradictions there and with the contradictions between the Bible and reality! "Shape yourself and then shave others"...

   The religious people here imagine that they are "followers of God", but in my opinion they are God's enemies. God is infinite and the attempt to imprison him within the pages of the Torah and the Talmud is the father of the fathers of heresy in his existence!!

2. What is this justification? If she prevented you from doing so, he is probably "strictly" secular in your eyes, maybe there were some religious people there.

3. Roy, I'm amazed at you. How do you rely on Scientific Maariv? How about asking the biology teachers?

4. The principal meant to say that she didn't want you to confuse the children but she wanted to be polite....

5. Leia

   Evolution is not a scientific "theory" - it is an explanation for the variety of life forms that we see today. This is a mechanism we understand and it fits absolutely everything we know. We know that there are necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution and we know that all these conditions are indeed met.

   There is no contradiction between evolution and belief in the Creator and perhaps even in something that directs the direction of evolution. Darwin himself based his peaceful descriptions, in part, on the premise that domestication is an evolutionary process instituted by man.

   On the other hand - there is no existing evidence today that requires this directed hand. And there is nothing we cannot explain without a guiding hand.

   Regarding the existence of a creator - this is beyond biology. We have several possible explanations for the formation of life - so there is no need for a creator for the beginning of life (which is not related to evolution). The question is whether a creator is needed to explain the formation of the universe, or whether there is evidence for such a creator.
   Modern physics holds that there is no evidence and there is no need for a creator.

6. Leah,
   when was that?

7. As someone who grew up in a religious home and was educated in a religious education system, I have never heard that evolution is opposed to religion. On the contrary! It's very funny, I learned about evolution at school and in secular schools, didn't I??!
   And in science, as in science, there is no absolute truth and much is hidden over the visible, so I am not claiming, God forbid, that science should be "censored", but it is important to keep an open mind and not to declare "truth".

8. someone
   The reason for the behavior of these extremists is precisely because of the origin of man. Man is not exactly descended from ape - but we and apes have a common ancestor that is relatively late. About 6 million years ago there lived an ape-like animal that we and the chimpanzees are descendants of the same creature.

   It could be that aliens brought the buds of life here. But life as we know it has been around for more than three and a half billion years...

9. I don't know if man came from the monkey, or if aliens created man, what is certain is that there are humans who are very similar to monkeys and even worse - Hamas, Hezbollah and Shiite extremists

10. another one,
    Why invent a definition for murder when a definition exists in the law and is fundamentally different from what you wrote?
    ------
    What is characteristic is for illegitimate killing - for example, killing is legitimate in war as self-defense

    ------
    In law (in Israeli criminal law at least) self-defense is a defense claim that a person may claim for example if he is accused of murder. In any case, the defendant has the duty to prove the defense's claim, and if he does not do so, then his actions, as long as they meet the definition in the law, will still be considered murder.
    ------
    It depends - I don't know much about the field and don't know who has the burden of proof
    But this is a discussion of morality and not of law.
    ------

    .. On the other hand, in the "moral laws" of the religion, it is written that you shall not kill. How did the "legislator" expect people to know when it was murder and when it wasn't?

    -----
    It was probably obvious in many cases - and if it was later detailed in many cases - I remember only a little - look for someone who is religious or who studied Jewish law if you want to know more - the Ten Commandments are not the only law in the Torah.
    ----
    Do you understand that the wording of the commandment is completely empty since most people know even without the commandment that murder is a bad thing on the one hand and the stipulations that permit premeditated killing in certain cases are determined in practice through human interpretation, so what is the point of commanding the obvious and not giving what is really true What is important are the detailed and loophole-free caveats that will clarify when it is allowed and when it is not allowed under any circumstances?
    ---
    The argument that saying don't kill when murder is by definition something forbidden is legitimate
    But the Tanach is a work that saves space - the idea is probably to illustrate the importance of human life - if you are interested, ask someone who has studied it properly.
    ---
    It is a fact that there were religious people who came to the conclusion that it is permissible to murder Rabin, is this moral in your opinion? It is a fact that there are religious people who believe that the gays and lesbians who dare to express their inclination should be killed even if it is only to participate in a parade that does not even enter "religious" neighborhoods, is this moral in your opinion?
    ———–
    In my case no-in their case yes-
    But there are also non-religious people in this world who do things that they think are moral and in my opinion are not.
    ----
    There are many more of this kind, we need to continue or it has already been clarified that salvation will not come from God in the moral issue, not theoretically, from analyzing the moral imperatives and not in practice, and this according to the actions of religious people who are clearly immoral.
    ----------
    I did not think so.
    ----------
    And of course I'm not here to claim that all the secular are supremely moral people or that all the religious are people with no morals at all. I would be happy if religious people would stop making the delusional and shocking claim that the Holy Scriptures are what makes them moral, because in that case they are testifying to themselves that they do not have the ability to feel the negative feeling that most people in the world,
    --------
    Not all religious people claim this - it is common to hear those who believe that man was created if morality is inherent in him
    --------

    Even complete secularists manage to feel about acts such as murder and that the only way for those religious to avoid such behavior is by blindly obeying the commandment of an imaginary friend not to behave in this way (and even then it does not always work because they find "holes" in the commandment and it is clear that if God Almighty left holes in the commandment then...).
    ---------
    It doesn't work that way - there are few if any religious people who will say that they don't do it just because of a religious commandment
    ---------

    Please be precise. Yes, I explained to you what I think morality is in a previous response, so at most you can say that you did not understand the explanation or that the explanation was incomplete at certain points (however, I did not explain my world view on the subject here. I am convinced that the explanation was not that complicated and was written quite clearly like this which can be easily understood, even if we disagree on it.
    -----
    As I said I wrote the comment, I didn't see your comment
    -----

    In my opinion, humanity "on average" was much less moral, in light of the basic values ​​that I believe are universal, that is, they do not draw their strength from a temporary social convention but derive from basic assumptions regarding the equality of human rights. I think that any society in which inequality exists in its basic concept will necessarily be immoral to a certain extent. The greater the gaps in inequality, the less moral that society is. Today in the western world, despite the large gaps (=> defective morality) the situation is much, much better than it was in the past, when people differed from each other in the most extreme way in issues such as freedom (movement, expression, occupation, etc.) and basic rights in general, such as the right to life and to the perfection of body and mind. The basic logic on which this concept is based is that there is usually no good reason that, in principle, we treat one person differently from another. This is expressed in many ways, such as the idea of ​​the blindness of justice regarding details that are not directly related to its past (such as status in the community, economic situation, etc.) when it comes to judging a person, as well as in phrases such as "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do not do to your friend what you hate" ”, they all express a symmetrical perception of human beings in society, where the starting assumption is equality of rights (with or without regard to their value). Once you get this symmetry, slavery is a very, very immoral act, also murder, also trafficking in women and things much, much easier than these like telling lies or cursing. As a general rule, I don't know a person who likes being cursed or lied to on a regular basis in his life, yet many of us do this. It is immoral. So there are things that the negative feeling about the act exists naturally (as mentioned also in small children who don't really understand the situation) and there are things that we need to learn (through other people, parents for example) how we should feel about them and if our parents or the Rebbe tells us that it is permissible to curse and spit About women who don't dress the way we want them to dress, even if they are little girls, then those people didn't know that what they were doing was very immoral in light of the basic assumptions of equal human rights. If you are willing to sacrifice that premise for the imperatives of an imaginary friend, or rather, the on-duty interpreter of those imperatives, then you are an immoral person to me, period. You don't have to accept it, this is still my opinion and it is possible to show through a mental exercise (backed up by game theory) that the symmetrical perception necessarily leads to a more moral society.
    ---------
    A rule of symmetry is not enough.
    In war there is an enemy - and you have to kill the enemy - the symmetry rule is bad because you don't want to be killed - and if the enemy poses a risk to your society, culture, tribe, kingdom, country, clan, family - what is the moral thing to do?

11. another one

    I do think that society in the past was less moral.

    What is morality? In the 18th century, Kant defined the categorical imperative - when you do something, think what would happen if everyone did as you (the basis of the metaphysics of morality - 1785). Socrates talked about morality (for example in Plato's Othyphro), and Aristotle wrote a lot about it (for example the Nichomachean Ethics).

    Long before that, in the Torah it is written "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 18:XNUMX).

    That is, they knew a long time ago what morality is. They knew, but did not act on it. Maybe because morality is a privilege of the rich.
    Maybe because of the forms of government in the past. Even today, in totalitarian countries morality is extremely poor (usually).

    Another reason is the media. Today everyone knows much more about what is happening in their husband.

    And these good things came from the secular world. Religion lived in the past……

12. Did you understand that I argued that society was completely immoral in the past? I don't understand how you understood that...
    -------
    An argument that I understood from miracles, not from you, sorry.
    -------
    There are many definitions for morality (by the way, you ask for a definition all the time, what is morality according to your definition?) and I only know what is moral in my opinion, because of an internal feeling, not because of an external rule, this is exactly the argument, that all humans have an internal feeling, even at a young age To a certain extent, what is a good and right thing and what is a bad and wrong thing.
    -------
    Not for all people - a fact that there are still many norms of morality that we promote in our culture
    It is difficult to separate our culture from our character - how exactly does a witness know what is genetic and what is the result of education? - With everything genetic why do we need to educate about values?
    ------

    When a little girl is sexually assaulted she feels it is wrong even when she doesn't understand exactly why. It's morals, the same judgment ability to feel, to hear! that something is good or bad.
    ---
    Not related to morality - even if you take a complete psychopath and beat him, he won't like it.
    Morality stems, among other things, from the ability to show empathy for other people - not to feel pain yourself.
    It is also quite low animals can feel.
    ---
    Your very ability to identify with imperatives such as you shall not murder is because you already have the ability to feel that murder is not a good thing.
    ---
    True - and this is expressed in culture and in ancient times in religion - there is feedback here - there are societies where killing is less taboo than in other societies and there is of course a different definition of what is a legitimate murder and what is not - is blood revenge, for example, moral?
    ---
    So it is true that there are people who will not steal just because of the fear of the law and not because they feel a general inner feeling that stealing is generally a bad thing, but in such a case that person does not act morally but refrains from committing immoral behavior and these are two very different things and it is easy to separate the cases When under certain conditions the threat of the law is small, or then there are moral people who continue not to steal while others who now steal even though they did not behave this way in the past.
    ———–
    Moral people can convince themselves that they are not stealing from anyone or that the person they are stealing from has deserved it or will not be lacking - that is why human culture has an effect on the moral decisions of every person."
    ———–
    Of course, in social life not all morals can exist happily, for example if someone really believes that if he falsifies identity cards and obtains funds with them for Yeshiva students who do not exist he is protecting the people of Israel and bringing redemption closer, I and many others feel that we cannot tolerate this type of morality because He violates a number of important moral rules, some of which are even supposed to be very important to that person who stole fraudulently.
    ----------
    So for this there are laws that are supposed to protect society from harm but also to reflect general moral values ​​that are agreed upon by the majority.
    ----------
    The point is that it doesn't make sense that God gave laws once and for all that are a) unclear and full of holes so that any lawyer of the religion can misuse them at will and further increase sin upon crime and say that he is doing it in the name of the same God, b) it is clear that these laws are only good for a limited period of time where slavery is a common thing, oppression of women is a completely acceptable thing and a long list of shocking drivers that were very prevalent at that time and later in the time of Chazal. What, it came as a surprise to him that humans undergo far-reaching cultural changes? What a limited perception this God has, a perception that is so similar to the human perception... and that's without mentioning the feelings of inferiority and the anxiety of abandonment lest humans stop giving him fasts, come on...
    ----------
    Just a moment - are you trying to convince me that maybe there is no God and that maybe the Bible was written by humans without divine inspiration?
    Don't bother - I'm completely secular,
    This whole discussion started when you tried to present religion as a complete source of immorality because of the elements that today are seen as immoral in our eyes.
    All the help to the weak there - all the "you were an immigrant in the land of Egypt" all the support for widows and all that - it is null and void because almost 3000 years ago women were not in the same status as men and they stoned homosexuals.
    So yes it was far from perfect.
    But it reflected the era - why do you assume that all evil is from religion and all good is intrinsic to humanity?

13. Camilla I might answer the rest later if I have the strength, but when I sent my short message I didn't see your reply.
    Either it didn't load or I didn't load the page.

14. Mifst = Manifest

15. another one,
    Why invent a definition for murder when a definition exists in the law and is fundamentally different from what you wrote?
    In law (in Israeli criminal law at least) self-defense is a defense claim that a person may claim for example if he is accused of murder. In any case, the defendant has the duty to prove the defense's claim, and if he did not do so, then his actions, as long as they meet the definition in the law, will still be considered murder. On the other hand, in the "moral laws" of the religion, it is written that you shall not kill. How did the "legislator" expect people to know when it was murder and when it wasn't? Do you understand that the wording of the commandment is completely empty since most people know even without the commandment that murder is a bad thing on the one hand and the stipulations that permit premeditated killing in certain cases are determined in practice through human interpretation, so what is the point of commanding the obvious and not giving what is really true What is important are the detailed and loophole-free caveats that will clarify when it is allowed and when it is not allowed under any circumstances? It is a fact that there were religious people who came to the conclusion that it is permissible to murder Rabin, is this moral in your opinion? It is a fact that there are religious people who believe that the gays and lesbians who dare to express their inclination should be killed even if it is only to participate in a parade that does not even enter "religious" neighborhoods, is this moral in your eyes? There are many more of this kind, we need to continue or it has already been clarified that salvation will not come from God in the moral issue, not theoretically, from analyzing the moral imperatives and not in practice, and this according to the actions of religious people who are clearly immoral. And of course I'm not here to claim that all the secular are supremely moral people or that all the religious are people with no morals at all. I would be happy if religious people would stop making the delusional and shocking claim that the Holy Scriptures are what makes them moral, since in that case they are testifying to themselves that they do not have the ability to feel the negative feeling that most people in the world, even completely secular ones, manage to feel about acts such as murder and that the only way for those religious to avoid such behavior is by blindly obeying the commandment of an imaginary friend not to behave this way (and even then it does not always work because they find "holes" in the commandment and it is clear that if an almighty God left holes in the commandment then...).

    Please be precise. Yes, I explained to you what I think morality is in a previous response, so at most you can say that you did not understand the explanation or that the explanation was incomplete at certain points (however, I did not explain my world view on the subject here. I am convinced that the explanation was not that complicated and was written quite clearly like this which can be easily understood, even if we disagree on it.

    In my opinion, humanity "on average" was much less moral, in light of the basic values ​​that I believe are universal, that is, they do not draw their strength from a temporary social convention but derive from basic assumptions regarding the equality of human rights. I think that any society in which inequality exists in its basic concept will necessarily be immoral to a certain extent. The greater the gaps in inequality, the less moral that society is. Today in the western world, despite the large gaps (=> defective morality) the situation is much, much better than it was in the past, when people differed from each other in the most extreme way in issues such as freedom (movement, expression, occupation, etc.) and basic rights in general, such as the right to life and to the perfection of body and mind. The basic logic on which this concept is based is that there is usually no good reason that, in principle, we treat one person differently from another. This is expressed in many ways, such as the idea of ​​the blindness of justice regarding details that are not directly related to its past (such as status in the community, economic situation, etc.) when it comes to judging a person, as well as in phrases such as "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do not do to your friend what you hate" ”, they all express a symmetrical perception of human beings in society, where the starting assumption is equality of rights (with or without regard to their value). Once you get this symmetry, slavery is a very, very immoral act, also murder, also trafficking in women and things much, much easier than these like telling lies or cursing. As a general rule, I don't know a person who likes being cursed or lied to on a regular basis in his life, yet many of us do this. It is immoral. So there are things that the negative feeling about the act exists naturally (as mentioned also in small children who don't really understand the situation) and there are things that we need to learn (through other people, parents for example) how we should feel about them and if our parents or the Rebbe tells us that it is permissible to curse and spit About women who don't dress the way we want them to dress, even if they are little girls, then those people didn't know that what they were doing was very immoral in light of the basic assumptions of equal human rights. If you are willing to sacrifice that premise for the imperatives of an imaginary friend, or rather, the on-duty interpreter of those imperatives, then you are an immoral person to me, period. You don't have to accept it, this is still my opinion and it is possible to show through a mental exercise (backed up by game theory) that the symmetrical perception necessarily leads to a more moral society.

16. Camilla - murder by definition is unlawful killing.
    Therefore, killing in self-defense is not murder.

    And still neither you nor Nissim have explained to me what morality is. - Was humanity according to a few centuries immoral but today it is?

17. Did you understand that I argued that society was completely immoral in the past? I don't understand how you understood that...
    There are many definitions for morality (by the way, you ask for a definition all the time, what is morality according to your definition?) and I only know what is moral in my opinion, because of an internal feeling, not because of an external rule, this is exactly the argument, that all humans have an internal feeling, even at a young age To a certain extent, what is a good and right thing and what is a bad and wrong thing. When a little girl is sexually assaulted she feels it is wrong even when she doesn't understand exactly why. It's morals, the same judgment ability to feel, to hear! that something is good or bad. Your very ability to identify with imperatives such as you shall not murder is because you already have the ability to feel that murder is not a good thing. So it is true that there are people who will not steal only because of the fear of the law and not because they feel a general inner feeling that stealing is generally a bad thing, but in such a case that person does not act morally but refrains from committing immoral behavior and these are two very different things and it is easy to separate the cases When under certain conditions the threat of the law is small, then there are moral people who continue not to steal while others who now steal even though they did not behave like this in the past.
    Of course, in social life not all morals can exist happily, for example if someone really believes that if he falsifies identity cards and obtains funds with them for Yeshiva students who do not exist he is protecting the people of Israel and bringing redemption closer, I and many others feel that we cannot tolerate this type of morality because He violates a number of important moral rules, some of which are even supposed to be very important to that person who stole fraudulently. The point is that it doesn't make sense that God gave laws once and for all that are a) unclear and full of holes so that any lawyer of the religion can abuse them at will and further increase sin upon crime and say that he is doing it in the name of the same God, b) it is clear that these laws are only good for a limited period of time where slavery is commonplace, the oppression of women is completely acceptable and there is a long list of shocking drivers that were very prevalent at that time and later in the time of Chazal. What, it came as a surprise to him that humans undergo far-reaching cultural changes? What a limited perception this God has, a perception that is so similar to the human perception... and that's without mentioning the feelings of inferiority and the anxiety of abandonment lest humans stop giving him fasts, come on...

18. another one,
    There is something very, very problematic with the Ten Commandments when religious people believe that the words were given by God himself and in his honor. When God gives these commandments such a special and permanent status (after all, God does not send down new tablets every month), it is inevitably implied that these commandments represent the most important moral values ​​in "the eyes of God", otherwise, if humans are given the authority to change moral values ​​at will , for example lowering the importance of one of the values ​​to a lesser degree or even canceling one of the commandments altogether, what is the point of such commandments in the first place if at least humans will decide what is good and what is bad? The ridiculous thing is that in practice this is the situation, humans are the ones who argue and interpret and in the end determine for example when it is permissible (and maybe even necessary) to murder another person and this is completely contrary to the commandment which was simple. If the simple commandment is actually not simple, and depends on interpretation (what is the definition of murder in general) and depends on the situation (for example, it is permissible to kill in self-defense) then what is the point of giving such a vague commandment that does not help matters, do religious Jews really not know that murder is A negative thing? Similarly, other lawyers of the religion decide that it is indeed permissible to steal if it helps the religion. What is the value of the commandments if in the end the vacillating interpretation of humans finds "holes" in the laws. Do you know that the ultra-Orthodox who invent all kinds of patents that bypass the prohibitions on certain activities on Shabbat, etc. claim that they are merely exploiting loopholes in the laws? And the interviewer is asked in a disgustingly inclusive way that if there are loopholes in the laws then they must be there so that they can circumvent the laws. Is this moral conduct in your eyes?

19. another one
    Is harming homosexuals today moral, given what we know about it now?

    There are things that have not changed (you shall not harm your children) and there are some that we only know today (punishment of children for example).
    You claim otherwise?

20. Camila - what is morality?
    Are you saying that human society was completely immoral until the day they stopped persecuting homosexuals? Until the day when full equality of rights is given to women according to the law?
    No less moral - completely immoral - zero morality. Is that what you claim?

21. another one,
    Do you think hurting another person (man or woman) because of a homosexual tendency is a moral act? Do you think the very perception that they should be harmed even if it was not actually carried out in practice is moral?

22. another one

    I do not define morality. In general, settings are not useful. There are certain behaviors that I call moral and you don't, there are some that you call moral and I don't, and of course the other two options as well.

    Moral animals.- See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

    What is morality? I think sacrificing your child is immoral. And I think it never was and never will be moral.

    So you claim that these actions are immoral? At least here we agree.
    Do you think that the fact that we are not punished in Tanach for immoral acts does not convey some negative message? Anyone who does not keep Shabbat is stoned to death. But the one who murdered his brother gets to build a city and call it after his son?

23. I claim that Judaism is immoral, contrary to David's opinion. I mean today's Judaism. In the past she was even less moral. God does not excel in his morality either.
    ----------
    How do you define morality?
    ---------
    And just so you know that morality is an innate quality, in humans as well as in certain animals. It must not come from religion.
    --------
    Moral animals?
    Do you have a link to this?
    ---------
    You say something strange: "the moral laws were different then". I don't know the concept of "moral laws". In my opinion - either law or morality. Obviously "thou shalt not murder" is both a law and a moral, but you will not go to jail for something related to morality.
    ———————–
    Again - what is morality - to me, what do you define as morality? There is a lot of philosophy on what morality is and what is the moral thing to do.
    --------
    You also say that in the past it was different. Yeftah murdered his house, and Elisha drove a bear at the children who insulted him.
    Indeed a different morality...
    -------
    None of these cases are presented as morally correct - neither in your text nor in the sources.

24. another one
    I claim that Judaism is immoral, contrary to David's opinion. I mean today's Judaism. In the past she was even less moral. God does not excel in his morality either.

    And just so you know that morality is an innate quality, in humans as well as in certain animals. It must not come from religion.

    You say something strange: "the moral laws were different then". I don't know the concept of "moral laws". In my opinion - either law or morality. Obviously "thou shalt not murder" is both a law and a moral, but you will not go to jail for something related to morality.

    You also say that in the past it was different. Yeftah murdered his house, and Elisha drove a bear at the children who insulted him.
    Indeed a different morality...

25. I don't understand what you are saying.
    You make a claim - and when you fail to substantiate it, you establish a different claim that is not really related - and when I point this out to you, you repeat and simply attack from a different angle?
    Yes - like all the old religions in the world it has old moral values ​​that also include discrimination against women -
    It is simply a reflection of what has gone before.
    This does not contradict what David said about the morality of one's behavior towards another - it just means that the moral laws themselves were different then.

26. another one
    You are taking the discussion in a direction I did not intend. David said "at least in the Jewish religion, I don't know about Christianity or Islam, but the moral value between a man and his fellow man has a higher weight than all the other commandments"

    I just don't understand why he says that. Judaism is moral towards animals, but not towards humans. Half of the Jews, the women, are clearly discriminated against. And let's not talk about the treatment of the other 99.8% of the world, those who are "Gentiles".
    Is this a moral religion?

27. another one,
    Instead of admitting that you made a huge mistake in claiming that the murderous regimes of the XNUMXth century were atheists, you continue, and sink deeper into the mud.
    I proved that these regimes were not atheists and although you drag the discussion to religion, as it is defined in your mind, although I did not claim that these were Christian regimes, I will deal with this argument as well.
    You wrote "These regimes were not religious, meaning that they did not draw their strength from religion and many times went strongly against it"
    Forgive me, this is complete nonsense, a spit in the face of history and simply insulting. Fascism throughout Europe drew its power directly from the church and in many cases, priests were at the head of the regime. Atheist regimes, they are not.
    You decided in your mind, because you struggled to find arguments instead of admitting that you were wrong, that I determined that Nazism is Christianity, and therefore you responded like this: "And they may have had a pragmatic agreement with the church in their territory, but that is what it was"
    It's not just what it was and I presented you with additional facts that you are welcome to check on the connection between Christianity and Nazism (why haven't you done it until now?) and you are welcome to check the (albeit weak and stammering) apology of the church for its part in the Holocaust. Know that an apology by the Church is a rare thing. In the links I sent you, Christopher Hitchens says that Nazism is a combination of Nordic mythologies, paganism and of course Christianity in the background, but in any case, atheism is not.
    There is not too much to repeat about Stalin, who studied until the age of 16 in the institutions of the Orthodox Church - communism is not an atheistic regime

    Now that we have established the fact that these murderous regimes were a religion unto themselves, let's rewrite your sentence: "Not only that, Nazism took the same theory of evolution and twisted it for its murderous eugenics and social Darwinism." Here, this is what a non-atheist regime does.

    The most atheistic system of government we know is the USA, where there is a wall of separation between religion and the state, to protect the hearts of the people of the Discovery Institute, and this is the country that has achieved the greatest scientific achievements in the history of mankind.

    Did I claim that evolution itself would make people moral? Did I claim that only evolution should be taught? Obviously not, so why narrow the discussion by putting things in my mouth? I claim that beyond the fact that evolution is a fact and therefore needs to be taught, it is another important pillar in turning students into moral people.

    I write again, your entanglement stems from this poor concept of atheism. Atheism is the denial of God without evidence and nothing else and with you a regime that is clearly not Christian becomes an atheistic regime. This is ridiculous and I expect you to implicitly write with two faces, as a decent person, that you agree with the claim that these bills were not atheistic and admit that you were wrong.

    On morality in the Torah and the Ten Commandments,
    I see the issue a little differently. Religion somehow took over the subject of morality and now for most people, religion and morality are one, but in my opinion, religion hijacked the subject of morality and distorted it. There are so many things in the Torah that are so immoral: slavery, killing the rapist, selling 12-year-old girls to men, bringing a rapist for rape, the status of women in general is like that of an animal, cutting the genitals of the newborn and this is only in chapter 180 🙂 It is clear that they were written by People and not by God. God would have created a temporary morality and not one that has become, in our days, under democratic regimes XNUMX degrees.
    If we accept for a moment the story of the exodus from Egypt, in the Torah, then the Israelites received the Ten Commandments in the desert. And until they got there? Were they under the impression that it is permissible to murder and steal? Is it permissible to testify falsely? I'm sure not. Fortunately for us, the story of the Exodus is just a story, because not a single piece of evidence for it has ever been discovered, and it's not that we weren't looking. When we conquered Sinai, Ben-Gurion sent archaeologists to look for evidence of this, and none was found, but in the story, Moses is the prince of Egypt. From the supposed period in which Moses was supposedly the prince of Egypt, there are actually quite a few testimonies preserved in Egyptian writings regarding their morals, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

    On the subject of the Ten Commandments, no culture has been found on the surface of Israel that was indifferent to murder, theft, and false testimony, and the commandments themselves carry the obligation of a punishment or a gift, and they do not stand on their own merits, and if you remember that according to the story, this contract is with God, then there is no contract here between equals Because if there is a contract between a dictator so that there is no morality here but absolute coercion when the death penalty is around every corner.

    Here are two spectacular clips in which Christopher Hitchens discusses the Ten Commandments. One is short and comprehensive and the other is a long and wonderful analysis of them:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9weXGtCk7c
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IePirrYBP_s

28. There is a division into two groups and this is something I already knew - but to assume that there is a descending order and that the first group is more important than the second is not an assumption you can make on your own - there is more to Judaism than the Tanakh and you cannot give an interpretation of Judaism based only on reading the Tanakh and your personal interpretation of it.

29. another one
    I'm trying to show that order is important. That's what the sources say. And I said you're right that maybe they're not in order from most important to least important, although that's how I understand the commandments.
    Let's agree that they are certainly wrong, increasing importance - okay?

30. trial?
    We are talking here about what is the accepted interpretation in Judaism - and you have not yet shown me a source that says that one verse has more importance than another because of the order in which they were written.
    I really don't know too much so I asked for a source - but you provided links that established something completely different.

31. another one
    How do you conclude that something cannot be concluded?? Did you do an experiment??

32. that it is impossible to conclude the importance and priority of each commandment according to its position in the ten commandments.
    You have not yet brought such an interpretation.

33. another one
    I don't find any other meaning to order. You may be right here. What meaning do you see?

34. Miracles - your argument was about importance that depends on the order and not on the general meaning of the order.

35. "Rafi - there is a difference between non-financing and coercion."
    another one
    You are both forced to go to the army and you are also forced to send your child to school within the framework of the compulsory education law.
    I don't find it unreasonable to force every existing educational institution to teach core studies.. like any other standard.

36. another one
    I claimed that there is order in the words. This is what is said in each of the quotes.

37. Thanks Nissim, I have to roll up my sleeves because, as you know, the reviewers don't count us, and the media doesn't give us a stage, so we might have to do provocations. For example, I spread the word that I was interested in a confrontation with Amnon Yitzhak on television talk shows. And I have excellent ideas for election propaganda that will not leave anyone indifferent, hoping that the ideas will be implemented.

38. Yes - I know this division from before and if this is your point - that one word has priority over the other and it is determined in order - I did not see that - although I only skimmed one of the links (the long one) - but in the rest - including in your response here this section is indicated. - If you have a quote that I didn't see that was relevant, show it, but even now you brought irrelevant quotes.

39. SAFKAN
    You really don't differentiate between core studies like calculus and the history of the Arabs living in Israel?

    I am not ashamed to say that I have no patience for those who in principle are not ready to serve in the army - Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, pacifists and certain artists.
    These people are garbage in my eyes (and I mean only those I said - not all the ultra-Orthodox, etc.).

    I'll say it again - whoever thinks that my person and the blood of my children is less valuable than theirs is human garbage. I am not ready to compromise on life.

    It is written - "Whoever sustains one soul, is exalted over him as if a whole world existed". Some people don't think so.
    It's probably only written in the core studies - the ultra-orthodox don't live by it!!!!!

    (And again - I have no problem with anyone who serves in the military according to his ability and the needs of the country).

40. another one
    Is there anything relevant there?
    The subject in the links is the order of the commandments. What do you not understand????

    They explain there why this arrangement is established.
    Why the former is in relation between Haden and God and the latter between man and his fellow man.

    for example
    Hogg divides the Ten Commandments into two parts: the first five commandments which are mainly commandments between man
    to God Whereas the remaining five commandments are essentially a commandment between a person and his fellow man.

    My God, you will not kill me
    There will be no adultery
    Do not carry, do not steal
    Remember you will not answer
    Respect you will not covet

    In the right column, the first five commandments that deal with the mitzvot between a person and a place (God).
    Activity on the mitzvot between man and God (click on "Between man and God")
    In the left column, the second five commandments that deal with the mitzvot between a man and his fellow man.
    Activity on mitzvot between a person and his friend (click on "between a person and his friend")

    for example
    The Ten Commandments therefore teach a main element of the Torah of Israel. It is built from the foundation to the tefahot, and it has an essential order.

    for example
    At the beginning of the study we will try to explain the way in which the Ten Commandments are arranged in the Bible, and find out what is the rationale behind this arrangement.

    for example
    If we take a deeper look at the Ten Commandments, we will notice that they have a very meaningful internal order, an order from which we can learn a lot about the structure of the Torah commandments in general.

    Don't be upset - read instead, okay??

41. my father
    You won my voice and all my family members!!!!

42. Rafi - there is a difference between non-financing and coercion.
    A big difference.

43. Miracles
    I went through most of the links you gave and did not see anything relevant.
    This phrase is part of the religion so you can't take it out.
    It's like saying that the norm in Judaism is to murder because otherwise there would be no need for 'thou shalt not murder'.

44. skeptic
    Although this is probably not pleasant for you, even a democratic country must force its citizens to learn the basic things in order to live and make a living with dignity... and no: it is not about the 'national ethos of the Arabs of Israel' but mainly English and mathematics, citizenship, etc. There is no reason for you or I to indirectly fund citizens who do not care and do not have the tools to support themselves. and that they have no connection to the state.
    Rabbi Haim Amsalem is not suspected of wanting to 'sanctify' the ultra-Orthodox, (he is ultra-Orthodox himself) and he also seriously thinks that the core should be applied. Simply because he is not too sophisticated like you..

45. In short, a skeptic, only math and English studies for the ultra-Orthodox sector will prevent you from voting for me?

46. Rafi

    Would you be happy if they forced you to learn the national ethos of the Israeli Arabs? This is also implied by the Or party's core program. It's just that maybe it infuriates you more, because it concerns your conscience (while you despise the conscientious faith of ultra-Orthodox people).

    And according to your opinion (I will mention Islam as a justification for forcing it): there are (former) Knesset members like Yossi Sharid or Shulamit Aloni who think that we should teach parts of the national ethos of the Israeli Arabs. Does the fact that Yossi Sharid and Shulamit Aloni think so justify forcing such an education on all Israeli citizens? The fact that Rabbi Amsalam encourages secular learning does not justify coercion on those who see this as anti-religious coercion.

    The core education includes within it an education that favors the secularization of the ultra-Orthodox sector (of course this will be wrapped up in a lot of beautiful and sweet words, but it is clear that the encouragement of secularization will *impose* on the ultra-Orthodox sector). Not to mention that, according to the method of some of the ultra-Orthodox, "cancelling Torah study" due to the reduction of time devoted to sacred studies, is anti-religious coercion.

    Reducing sacred studies is an inevitable result of forcing other studies, since the study hours are a *fixed* number. In detail. Let's say that an ultra-Orthodox student studies an average of 50 hours a week in sacred studies, as soon as you add 10 hours a week of "core" education, you reduce the number of hours devoted to sacred studies to 40 instead of 50. If this is not anti-religious coercion, I don't know what is anti-religious coercion. . I appreciate that in a liberal country like the United States, the Amish cult is not forced to learn what they think contradicts their faith.

    It is possible to side with not providing budgets to the ultra-Orthodox in educational institutions that do not include core studies. But under no circumstances should core studies be forced on them if they see core studies as an education that goes against their faith.

47. Rabbi Chaim Amsalem HaForesh Meshas, ​​chairman of the 'Am Shalem' party, is also in favor of applying core studies to the ultra-Orthodox and enlisting in the army:

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/174/863.html

    As I asked you, a skeptic (and you ignore it, but that is your right): what is the problem with core studies? How does this relate to hating Haredim? And is Rabbi Haim Amsalem 'anti-Orthodox' in your eyes..?

48. The fact that the name Avraham is written is not because I was hiding or anything like that, but it is simply my official name on the identity card.
    And thanks for posting.\
    As for the core, it's not about things that go against religion like evolution, but about math and English as well as citizenship and history. Regarding mathematics and English, the objection stems from the fact that the ultra-Orthodox do not want shepherding sheep to make a living from work but to depend on them, and this is a cynical exploitation of an innocent faith. Regarding citizenship and history - you cannot allow 20% of the public to be ignorant of the meaning of democracy, because when they are in power they will mercilessly attack others because they simply do not understand another way, because they must not learn that there is a democratic way to solve problems.

49. indeed. According to the platform (which I read the beginning of now) the Or party includes in its platform a section of forcing core learning on all citizens of Israel, even if this learning contradicts the religious beliefs of the citizens of Israel.

    Below (below) I quote the beginning of the platform of the Or party. (Note the word *must* that appears in the quoted passage).

    ================================================== ====

    The articles of the substrate

    A. Education, education, science and culture

    Education core - free compulsory education law

    A.1. The state will enact and finance a free compulsory education law, equal to all, regardless of religious outlook, gender, origin and economic status. This education will reflect the values ​​of equality and democracy, the tradition and culture of all the citizens of the country, according to an agreed upon core program that will be determined on this subject, and will include the minimum necessary for each student to grow up and become an independent person who finances himself, and who does not fall into a burden on society. A free compulsory education law may also finance an equal and limited amount of content and values ​​beyond that core program, according to the choice of different population groups, provided that these content and values ​​do not contradict the democratic, egalitarian and pluralistic character of the country.

    The Or Party will put education at the top of the list of priorities and will work to reduce the number of students in classes to improve the level and status of teachers, to develop curricula that will develop thinking, research, criticality and creativity in students, and loyalty to the state. The core program will include a basic recognition of the different cultures that make up Israeli society (Jewish, Arab, Druze and Circassian), with the aim of bringing the different populations closer together. Hebrew and Arabic will be compulsory languages ​​in all schools.

50. skeptic
    What is so terrible about being forced to study core studies and how is it related to hatred of ultra-Orthodox? I think even Rabbi Amsalem (he is from the party) is in favor of this matter

51. Good news for the religious haters commenting on this site.

    The "Or" party submitted a candidacy to run for the Knesset in the 2013 elections. Apparently - the director of this website (the Hidan website), Avraham B., is listed there as candidate number 6 on the list.

    The "Or" party is probably an anti-Orthodox party according to its platform. I read the platform of the Or party (partially until I broke down) about a year ago. According to my memory (I may be wrong) one of the articles of the platform then was to oblige all educational institutions in the country to study the core studies (even if it is against their conscience). It's worth re-checking this substrate section, but I don't have the strength right now to read again if this section is still muscle.

    Anyway. The ultra-Orthodox haters will be less happy if they find out in two months that the "Or" party will not pass the blocking percentage (the blocking percentage is about 50 thousand votes). According to my memory, the Or party ran for elections 4 years ago and received less than 900 votes.

52. another one
    http://www.arachim.co.il/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleID=314
    http://midreshet.org.il/pageview.aspx?id=342
    http://www.ypt.co.il/show.asp?id=31485
    https://sites.google.com/site/orensaadi/a8

    The phrase exists, yes. You explain to me why you had to say that.

53. But this phrase exists doesn't it?
    So fact.
    Bring me an interpretation that shows why the order matters.

54. another one
    Of course I think so. Are you saying that order has no meaning?
    But that's not the point.

    David said that moral values ​​between people are more important than any other mitzvah in Judaism. I do not see it. The phrase "Peekuch Nefesh rejects Shabbat", shows that this is not a matter of course...

    I have a suggestion for you. Let's do experiments 🙂

55. You didn't quote, you just stated something - and the argument you used shows that you are going against the interpretation I know?
    What does Akedat Yitzhak have to do with it?
    What does order have to do with the Ten Commandments?
    Do you think that honoring your parents is more important than killing according to the Bible?

56. another one
    I did not interpret. I quoted.
    Are you saying I counted wrong?

57. incidentally:
    Hindus believe that the world has existed as long as the life of Brahma in earthly terms: something like: 155.5 trillion years
    Now xianghua, is the Hindu tradition enough for you? Nevertheless: close to a billion believers..

58. Miracles-
    Atza don't you think it's a bit funny that a datheist like you interprets the Bible - and the opposite of what many secular and religious scholars alike say?

59. xianghua
    You still haven't answered me what you would do if you had AIDS (God forbid) would you go to Dr. Peter Duesberg..?

60. Uncle
    In the Ten Commandments - only from the fifth do they start talking about the treatment of people.
    And - we will not forget Yitzhak's bond.

    Let's be precise……

61. Shmulik ,
    From my little knowledge of religious matters,
    Pure religion and without the private interpretations of extremists,
    represents values ​​contrary to what the regimes you described support,
    At least in the Jewish religion, I don't know about Christianity or Islam, but the moral value between a person and his fellow man has a higher weight than all the other mitzvot, therefore not everyone who speaks in the name of the religion represents it, so don't be in a hurry to be convinced, that he represents some religion, Although he is outwardly dressed as the Holy Mary or Moses

    xianghua,
    You did not answer the question why you insist on proving the theory of the intelligent designer, if it is so important
    Go, do you treat it as white noise? Or do you also communicate with him through aliens and such"?

62. Shmulik
    If you define religion for everything bad then we will be in trouble.
    These regimes were not religious, meaning that they did not draw their strength from religion and many times went strongly against it
    And they may have had a pragmatic agreement with the church in their territory but that's what it was-
    A cult of personality is something that usually conflicts with religion - now you could say that it is a form of religion in itself - and you would be right to a certain extent - but that won't help your argument - because your problem is with conventional religions and not if any general ideology whatsoever - the theory of evolution It will not help you against the eugenics and social Darwinism of Nazi Germany that took it and distorted it beyond all recognition.

    This is also true of the extreme socialist ideologies that rejected the old world and to varying degrees the religion of the old world and still led to the construction of dark regimes in the name of a new enlightenment.
    Fiscal and biological science would not change anything because there is no contradiction in them with the non-willing "religion" of glorifying the leader - as long as they glorify him as a man and not as a god at least.

63. withering
    You are feeding xianghua again

    another one
    When it's convenient for you, you ask for proof, and when it's convenient for you, you claim that there are things outside of science.

    And I claim, outside of science, that not studying evolution means destroying humanity

    deal with it

64. another one,
    Absolutely not true and here we have reached the end. Check your facts.

    By the way, I noticed your ballet dance. You wrote that most of the regimes were secular (not true, Italy and Spain were not secular countries, and I already told you about the Nazis. Why are you ignoring it?) In other words, you decided to give up the word atheism because at least here you were convinced that they were not atheists. Each of these murderous regimes in Europe drew their power from Christianity and engaged day and night in glorifying the leader and his regime and they, in turn, promised miracles and wonders to the people.
    This is neither secularism nor atheism, I am happy to announce.

    In Japan the emperor was a god. This is neither secularism nor atheism
    In North Korea, their dead leader is still the leader. His grandson is only the head of the party because the dead leader is still the head of state. This is neither secularism nor atheism

    All these are a form of religion. The belief in something greater than yourself that determines your personal destiny.

65. Shmulik
    Cult of personality does not contradict the fact that the administration was largely secular.
    Religion was not the driving force behind any of the atrocities these regimes committed-
    At least not conventional religion.

66. "...fossils out of place, Dino reliefs made by human hands, traditions of thousands of years in different cultures and more"

    Traditions of thousands of years in different cultures! Sacrifice women and men, sins cause diseases. This is friends, folding. God must be behind it all.

    Fossils out of place. have you seen it
    http://www.myamazingearth.com/2012/07/the-mysterious-moving-rocks-of-death-valley/

    moving stones God must be behind it. All of you run to the nearest priest

67. A little addition Eric. It is a fact that some methods have been found to be unreliable, and if so, how can one know that others are reliable?

    Regarding the cross-checking of data from different dating methods - with cross-checked and independent methods (as mentioned - DNA extraction, misplaced fossils, human-made Dino reliefs, traditions of thousands of years in different cultures, etc.) it turns out that the age of the world is several tens of thousands of years. But the fact is that you do not support this claim.

68. There is no such thing as the theory of intelligent design. The planner in this "theory" is God and the theory is not scientific because it does not stand the test of refutation and it does not offer any prediction. A prediction that something will not happen is not a prediction.

69. ” Again a mistake. The alternative is not *necessarily* a 6000 year old world but several tens of thousands of years. And I think that even according to Judaism itself the world is not approximately 6000 years old."

    You ignore the fact that you will find enough evangelicals, even "Dr." who claim that the world is less than 6000 years old.. This means nothing.. There are also people who insist that the world is flat.

    Claiming that the world is 'tens of thousands of years' is demagoguery (which you are aware of of course).. There are dozens of cross-methods for finding the age of the world which you of course ignore because you have no idea about them..

70. Kamila, in light of your extremely uninteresting response, and in light of the fact that you did not address the claims I made at all (interesting by the way that you suddenly went silent regarding the question of the age of the world), and in light of your claim of being a troll, I wonder if you have even a shred of understanding on the subject.

    I will follow up on one thing. you said:

    "Even if you are completely convinced that this is authentic DNA, it is still more likely (much, much more) that the estimates about the feasibility of preserving hereditary material over the years were not accurate," - if you read some professional information on the subject (like me, for example), you would see for yourself that the research The scientific sets a Meschimal threshold of approximately one million years, and more at super-shift temperatures. So the margin of error in the case of DNA from the Triceratops species, may reach 100 times what is determined by science itself. And if this is so, how can the age of the world claim be called science?

    "Simply because in the second case we will have to give up most of the physics, chemistry, biology and geology we know" - absolutely not. The claim of the age of the world does not change the findings of fossils or the world of chemistry. It simply changes the time scale required for evolution. Hence your strong objection.

    And it would be quite silly considering that each of these fields alone, let alone together, has already proven itself countless times, while the alternative (a 6000-year-old Earth)" - again a mistake. The alternative is not *necessarily* a 6000 year old world but several tens of thousands of years. And I think that even according to Judaism itself the world is not approximately 6000 years old.

    "To throw them in the trash just because we know that in certain things they are limited and even completely wrong would be an incredibly stupid act" - sorry, but this is exactly the opposite of the definition of a scientific theory. If a scientific theory is proven to be wrong, it should be replaced, and not continue to stick to it stubbornly.

    "And this is exactly the situation in which the theory of evolution is, it still has a lot of open questions but there is nothing else that even comes close to giving explanations and is understandable for a huge range of phenomena" - what phenomenon can be explained by evolution but not by design? If the real situation is the opposite - evolution does not explain the development of complex biological systems (I'm still waiting for your answer regarding the questions asked about the scaffolding theory), while intelligent design explains it easily and is further supported by research. as he said.

71. another one,
    As for China, I need to inquire about the rest, any hints? Says yes, of course. Have you seen the clips?
    I do not claim that the regimes are completely Christian regimes, but by definition none of them are atheist regimes but religious or quasi-religious (the glorification of the leader, from whom everything stems, the successes, the values). Does that sound like atheist regimes to you?

    Indeed, the education system has failed

72. Are you implying that Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (among others) were religious regimes?

73. Sorry for the spelling mistakes in my previous post. awkward!
    The last sentence is: read, and then go and check your facts before you state that the murderous regimes of the XNUMXth century were secular atheists

74. another one,
    I was waiting for it, and you gave me a lift.
    The crazy regimes of the XNUMXth century were far from liberal secular atheists and it's embarrassing that you write this.

    In short, because I am sending immediately I will send you to someone who will summarize the subject better than me.
    Hitler: His first alliance was with the Catholic Church. In Mein Kampf he says that he is doing God's work. On the belt of the Nazi army it was written: "God by our side". 40% of the Waffen SS were active Catholics. This is not secularism. This is not atheism. And that is not liberalism.

    Satlin: "inherited" the tsar (after Lenin) who was there in Russia, for hundreds of years the Soviet public was educated that the tsar is between man and the Christian God. He carried out an inquisition, mass purges, miracles through the invented biology of Lesenko (5 crops a year) and the Russian church partly stood by him. They are always there. Today, in our day and age, the Russian Orthodox Church issues amulets with Putin on them. This is not atheism.

    Japan: At the time, Emperor Hiroito was a god. no less than that. Although it is not Christianity in this case, it is neither atheism nor secularism

    North Korea: Even worse. The head of the army (son) is not the head of state. The head of the state is their long-dead grandfather whom they worship every second of the day. This is neither secularism nor atheism.

    Christopher Hitchens, the revered author and journalist, repeatedly tells about this in his lectures. I suggest you see:

    On Nazism and Fascism:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RSjvQYdVTQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qoUXu-JsE – The whole segment is a master piece, but the segment about the Nazis starts at 3:03

    About the communists:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhczvtmbWE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qoUXu-JsE - starting from the 48th minute

    About North Korea:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-Vr_r36Fg

    Ceiling and then go and do a fact check

75. Shmulik - this is your belief that evolution studies will make students less religious than they are.
    And not only that - you also believe that studying evolution will make those people more tolerant.
    You have not provided studies or evidence - although there are certainly studies on the subject because you are far from the only one who thinks so.
    It is very easy to talk about religion as a source of intolerance in the world - but it should be mentioned again that the most totalitarian and murderous regimes in the twentieth century were mostly quite atheistic. not only this
    Nazism took that theory of evolution and twisted it for its murderous eugenics and social Darwinism.
    So what is the difference between religion and evolution - the people are the same people - and the evil within them found a way to express itself and instead of religious persecution or jihadism we had eugenics and racism that simply expressed their hatred with the tools of convenient pseudo science.
    The source of impatience in the world is not religion, but human beings, so it doesn't really matter what people believe, but a much more general mindset that determines a society's attitude towards the different, their level of equality, their attitude towards outsiders.
    Religion or any alternative ideology is just a form of expression in culture.

76. another one,
    But we wrote repeatedly why.
    Since this is the truth and since this truth connects man to nature as another completely normal production, dependent on nature and himself and not on an external, capricious, homophobic, misogynist and foreigner, more than any other theory.

    As Roy wrote, teaching biology as a technique will not achieve this, but if evolution, in its broadest sense, is taught properly, this message will be conveyed and the students who will be able to absorb it, will grow up to be less quarrelsome and quarrelsome people.

    This is my opinion on the matter.

77. The last Camilla:
    ------
    This is demagoguery, first show us the same thing in every field of study that is mandatory today (especially in subjects related to religion), then surely you can show what you are asking for with evidence, after all these are mandatory studies...
    ------
    But you have the claim that it should be taught - and there are places in the world where it is compulsory - and there are enough people who want to push for evolution studies for reasons similar to yours - for sure there is research -
    I don't need to bring research that strengthens the status quo - you need research that shows that the status quo needs to be changed.

    ------

    In my opinion, any field that educates people and especially gives them rational thinking tools and reveals to them based knowledge about the world we live in is an important field that must be taught (and evolution is certainly such a field), it is simply a basic assumption that as a rule knowledge based on a reality that can be tested and examined, contributes to people , both on a personal level (satisfies the natural curiosity that exists in almost all of us, gives rational tools that can be used in other situations) and on a social level (enables the progress and growth of science and technology for example) and in any case such knowledge is better than unfounded beliefs that have a far-reaching effect On the way of life, which is common in religion or in many Yo-Age concepts, for example, where you must ask not only what is the benefit, but also what is the harm from basing decisions and actions on the basis of those untested beliefs (for example, preventing proven conventional medical treatment and preferring a medical method " "alternative" is a quirk that there is no test that shows that it works (sometimes there are even tests that show that the method does not work beyond the placebo effect).
    ------
    It's just a shame that teaching costs money and that the state's money is limited and there are only a limited number of hours a day in which you can teach - so you have to give priority - explain why evolution has priority over other subjects.

78. And this is what the researcher writes about her findings towards the end of the article:

    These data are not sufficient to support the claim that DNA visualized
    in these cells is dinosaurian in origin

    In short there seems to be partial circumstantial evidence but no solid evidence yet.

79. Shmulik,

    Here is a summary of the discoveries related to dinosaurs and research done following these discoveries:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer

    And if you want to go deeper, you are welcome to read the articles (some of them are free).

    The last article dealing with the subject is from 2013 by the researcher who discovered the original soft tissues. Here is the summary:

    Abstract
    The discovery of soft, transparent microstructures in dinosaur bone consistent in morphology with osteocytes was controversial. We hypothesize that, if original, these microstructures will have molecular features in common with extant osteocytes. We present immunological and mass spectrometry evidence for preservation of proteins comprising extant osteocytes (Actin, Tubulin, PHEX, Histone H4) in osteocytes recovered from two non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. We propose mechanisms for preservation of cells and component molecules, and discuss implications for dinosaurian cellular biology.

    In short, it still doesn't seem certain, but in any case, even if you are completely convinced that this is authentic DNA, it is still more likely (much, much more) that the estimates of the feasibility of preserving hereditary material over the years were not accurate, at least for certain conditions, and not that dinosaurs The ones around humans, simply because in the second case we would have to give up most of the physics, chemistry, biology and geology that we know, and that would be quite silly considering that each of these fields alone, let alone together, has already proven itself countless times, while the alternative (Earth -6000 years) creates many more difficulties, and problems and contradictions, which currently do not exist at all. Is it possible that all scientific knowledge at the moment is not the most correct possible? certainly. More than that, we know for sure, for example in physics, that both quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, both are not complete theories when both lead to an incorrect description of reality on certain scales, but still, they are the best descriptions we have, and they are really, really, really good. Throwing them in the trash just because we know that in certain things they are limited and even completely wrong would be an incredibly stupid act as long as a better alternative than them has not been presented, meaning that explains at least the same volume of phenomena and with the same degree of success. There is nothing today that even comes close to this, and this is exactly the situation that the theory of evolution is in, it still has a lot of open questions but there is nothing else that even comes close to giving explanations and understanding for a huge range of phenomena.

80. Yesim = miracles

81. Yesim,
    I beat for my sin... Everyone will decide for himself how much he is ready to feed the troll.

82. another one,
    "See how evolution studies improve something outside the understanding of evolution - somewhere in the world."

    This is demagoguery, first show us the same thing in every field of study that is mandatory today (especially in subjects related to religion), then surely you can show what you are asking for with evidence, after all these are mandatory studies...

    In my opinion, any field that educates people and especially gives them rational thinking tools and reveals to them based knowledge about the world we live in is an important field that must be taught (and evolution is certainly such a field), it is simply a basic assumption that as a rule knowledge based on a reality that can be tested and examined, contributes to people , both on a personal level (satisfies the natural curiosity that exists in almost all of us, gives rational tools that can be used in other situations) and on a social level (enables the progress and growth of science and technology for example) and in any case such knowledge is better than unfounded beliefs that have a far-reaching effect On the way of life, which is common in religion or in many Yo-Age concepts, for example, where you must ask not only what is the benefit, but also what is the harm from basing decisions and actions on the basis of those untested beliefs (for example, preventing proven conventional medical treatment and preferring a medical method " "alternative" is a quirk that there is no test that shows that it works (sometimes there are even tests that show that the method does not work beyond the placebo effect).

83. another one
    Unlike you, I do not engage in demagoguery. I made up my mind. There is a lot of thought and life experience behind this opinion.
    My children's future is more important to me than being "right" as you describe it. I'm just sorry that they didn't think like that before and we live in a world that will get worse and worse.

84. Another one you start to annoy, what do you want the journalist to go and talk to 20 thousand teachers, or to finance a study with tens of thousands of shekels with the participation of a representative sample? Why don't you require it in every other news item on the news sites?

85. Miracles - then you have no evidence that can confirm your thesis.
    Then what do you want?
    It doesn't matter how true and important the theory of evolution is because your claim is not about biology but about the teaching sciences - are evolution studies a good use of study hours for those studying other studies -
    You want to tell me that despite all the laws in some countries abroad - you don't have such a study to pull out?

86. The last Camilla
    Do you feed him and not allow others to play with him??
    : )

87. another one
    Evidence provider? What evidence will satisfy you?

    You're right. Let's do some experiments. We will take 2 populations and check. We will wait 30 years and look at the results. The problem is that I really don't see humanity existing in 30 years.
    I am not kidding.

88. xianghua

    The truth is that I'm not really surprised by you, as someone who tries to contradict science using science...

    And this too:
    "The examples you gave have physical constraints that dictate their arrangement. Which is not the case for biological systems..."

    Biological systems have no physical constraints, eh...
    No, I'm really no longer surprised by you in light of the things you write.

    Miracles,
    Since xianghua is a troll, you know that nothing can convince him, and I know, it's not right that we feed the troll...

89. OK - provide evidence - see how the study of evolution improves something outside the understanding of evolution - somewhere in the world.

90. another one

    I think you are wrong. I think our understanding of our place in the living world is critical to the continued existence of humanity. It is hard for me to see what is more important than knowing that we are a species of animal that may become extinct, as has already happened to 99% of species to this day.

    Understanding evolution is simple and seeing the evidence for it is even simpler. I think that studying the subject will change the face of humanity.

    I'm sorry that so few see it.

91. It is not so necessary to teach evolution.
    Considering that most secularists who do not study evolution remain secularists
    I really don't think that studying evolution at the high school level is something that will change the status quo here.
    There is indeed no need for a being outside of human understanding to explain the universe.
    It won't help either because it won't explain. Because "God willed" is not an explanation that helps in anything.

92. another one
    I lost you. The article here talks about the teaching of evolution. I think it is necessary to teach evolution, just as it is necessary to teach that the universe does not revolve around us, and that there is no need for a being "outside" human understanding to understand the past of the universe.

    Do you agree or not?

93. Xianghua is not so interested in the age of the world, but he estimated that a little less than 30% were a few thousand years old and probably that at least with such a probability they were 4.54 billion years old. He does not have any other number between these two numbers.

    And in the corner of today's trial of xianghua:
    "Mistake. The examples you gave have physical constraints that dictate their arrangement. which is not the case for biological systems"
    That is, according to xianghua's opinion, nature studied at the university. When nature decides to behave physically, it has physical constraints, but when it decides to behave as a biological system, Hope, it removes any limitation and no constraint applies to it anymore. Nature has a great ability.

    withering,
    Can you tell us what happened to the dinosaurs and the DNA?

    another one,
    Easy to respect. I fail to understand what is not understood in the following point: the person making the argument must prove it, and until he has not done so, I do not even have to address the argument. In order for me to refer to a religious god, the claimant has to prove his existence or at least bring evidence of his existence and until then, there is nothing to talk about. There's no point in messing with something that doesn't exist.

    I don't know how I also fail to explain the issue of concealment in the education system. What only 4 teachers? The MPM member herself told that because of sensitivity to the religious public, the students are not told about evolution. I'll write again: the MPMR, an official representative of the Ministry of Education, the one responsible in the Ministry of Education for teaching biology to all Israeli students studying biology, said this. All the content that the teachers convey is dictated by the Ministry of Education itself and we have supporting testimonies from several teachers who instruct them not to tell about this dangerous word. What is not understood here? Obviously, there is a deliberate hand here. Why are you rolling your eyes?

94. Miracles
    I am not saying that there is something beyond the understanding of man.
    I say that if there was such a thing it would be impossible to confirm or disprove its existence with the help of science.
    i.e. anything that part of its definition is sublimity from human understanding (like the monotheistic God)
    So by definition there is no point or meaning in a scientific discussion of it.

    I still don't understand what you are trying to convince me of.

95. xiangzhua
    Why are you mixing up probability, evolution and life creation?

96. xianghua
    You wrote "What prevents the planner from using evolution is the scientific evidence. If there were scientific evidence for evolution, it would still be possible to see how much a natural process was required for the matter. But also without any scientific proof of acceptance?"

    There is scientific evidence for evolution. What is not clear? What would satisfy you as proof?

97. xianghua
    If you were an AIDS patient, heaven forbid, would you rely on Dr. Peter Duesberg..?

98. Man understands how the universe is created and how life develops and how to prepare krambo. What exactly is out there?
    To the understanding of man?

    You are doing something dishonest, to me. You say that there is something beyond the understanding of man and therefore we cannot investigate it.

    If that's the case then I choose to ignore it, otherwise it has no effect on anything. The whole conversation is unnecessary because you will never be convinced.

    And you will never convince………..

99. Camila you will be surprised, but I really don't really care what the age of the world is.

    Leave the jokes about blind faith aside, thanks.

    What prevents the planner from using evolution is the scientific evidence. If there were scientific evidence for evolution, it would still be possible to see how much a natural process was required for the matter. But even without any scientific proof of acceptance?

    "You haven't demonstrated anything if you don't present what the statistical model is with which you calculated the probabilities for the events in question. Everything you have presented so far are "calculations" that we know are irrelevant because the legality of joining organic building blocks into more complex structures is fundamentally different from the legality of the independent retrieval of balls from a sealed bag "- your words are refuted by the evolutionary scientists themselves (Prof. Ken Miller) , Dr. Nick Matzka and others). who are not willing to accept any possible reasonableness. That's why they also use the scaffolding theory. Do you disagree with this theory?

    ” Like for example the organization of atoms in a crystal or in the formation of a snowflake. If we run the same probabilistic model that you put forward to calculate what is the probability of the formation of table salt from drying a solution of chlorine and sodium ions, we will find that the chance of getting a tiny grain of table salt is much, much smaller than the calculations you presented, for example, regarding obtaining combinations of nucleotides or amino acids, and you are welcome to do the calculation To see for yourself how huge the differences are." - Error. The examples you gave have physical constraints that dictate their arrangement. Which is not the case for biological systems. And that the mutations dictate glycolysis or blood clotting?

    "It's an incredibly gross and stupid error after you think about it for ten seconds or so, to conclude what you claim exactly because we know that the model you used is simply not relevant and does not fit the cases in question." - Again, you disagree with the evolutionary scientists, unequivocally.

    "Show what your statistical model is, as you have been asked to do many times in the past, a request which you have ignored as usual time after time, and after that we can check whether your calculation is worthy of reference and whether the conclusions do indeed derive from the assumptions" - see above.

100. Am I arrogant? Am I a hypocrite?!
     ----

     The same science that says that there are factors beyond the horizon also says that there is no need and no evidence for a Creator and it also says that there is nothing outside of science.
     ------
     Did I ever say otherwise?
     ------
     This whole concept "outside of science" is meaningless nonsense. Maybe there are things outside of physics, like physics outside of chemistry and chemistry outside of biology and so on.
     ------
     Science is a method - a tool - a means - a way of working - if there is something that one of its definitions is that it is sublime beyond the understanding of humans - how can you use science which is a tool of human understanding to investigate it? If we succeed then he will not be exalted.
     ------
     I don't understand what you are basing this strange concept on. What exactly makes you think that there is something wrong with science?
     ----
     What makes you think not?

101. another one
     A little less arrogance and a little less hypocrisy never hurt anyone

     The same science that says that there are factors beyond the horizon also says that there is no need and no evidence for a Creator and it also says that there is nothing outside of science.

     This whole concept "outside of science" is meaningless nonsense. Maybe there are things outside of physics, like physics outside of chemistry and chemistry outside of biology and so on.

     I don't understand what you are basing this strange concept on. What exactly makes you think that there is something wrong with science?

102. ^ That is: it's not that he's really interested in what science says.. What he's interested in is denying it, that's my intention..

103. withering
     Surely it interests him if there is *scientific evidence* that the world is older than 6000 years. In fact, he denies it.

104. Miracles
     You don't know things that exist and there is no evidence of their existence?
     So let me tell you about something totally fiscal:
     In the wide universe there is such a thing as a horizon - beyond which there are celestial objects that we will never be able to see - at least not within the framework of known physics. The reason that at this distance the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
     Every gram of sky that exists beyond this horizon - there is no evidence of its existence.
     Does that mean he doesn't exist?
     Miracles You think like a pseudo-scientist (like creationists) and force science to serve your worldview.
     In science it is admittedly stupid to claim something without any corroboration - but since the theistic claim and the deistic claim are not scientific claims - then the first scientific claim is of course the anti-theistic and anti-theistic claim - therefore you need to bring corroborations - you can contradict historical claims from various religious scriptures - you can contradict Scientific claims if there are any - the main thing - you cannot contradict - especially that the main thing is described as something that is mostly sublime from human understanding.

     Science is by nature agnostic - we don't "know" anything!
     We have models, theories and hypotheses, we have nothing absolute.
     This is what is good about science - science is not a collection of knowledge but a method of looking at reality.

105. xianghua
     It really doesn't interest you if the world is 6000 years old or billions of years old? What a strange man… Just proving there is a God, is that what you care about? What does it matter if there is or isn't God? If not, the closest thing we can get to it is blindly believing in it? Does it help us to know and understand the reality around us better?
     By the way, it's God Almighty right and we can't understand His ways? So what prevents him from actually creating a world where, starting from the moment he placed the first cell in the mud puddle, everything else changes through evolution without any further intervention by him? Are you seriously telling us that you know what God can or cannot do? A really strange person…

     "I demonstrated well why there are no gradual intermediate stages between system and system. And hence the gradual scenario is also not possible, and hence only astronomical jumps come into consideration."

     You haven't demonstrated anything if you don't present what the statistical model is that you used to calculate the probabilities for the events in question. Everything you have presented so far are "calculations" that we know are irrelevant because the legality of joining organic building blocks into more complex structures is fundamentally different from the legality of an independent retrieval of balls from a sealed bag (or any equivalent model). You have ignored any knowledge that we do have that must be taken into account in order to estimate probabilities. I have already demonstrated several times in the past that ignoring such information is likely to lead us to completely wrong conclusions when we apply it to other processes, such as the arrangement of atoms in a crystal or the formation of a snowflake. If we run the same probabilistic model that you put forward to calculate what is the probability of the formation of table salt from drying a solution of chlorine and sodium ions, we will find that the chance of getting a tiny grain of table salt is much, much smaller than the calculations you presented, for example, regarding obtaining combinations of nucleotides or amino acids, and you are welcome to do the calculation To see for yourself how huge the differences are. These examples demonstrate exactly how ignoring information (in this case the electrical forces that act between ions, the spatial structure of the molecules, the temperature, the existence of crystallization nuclei, the presence of catalysts of chemical reactions and many other properties that are known facts, illustrate everything you have claimed so far on the improbability Seemingly worthless, it's an incredibly gross and stupid error after you think about it for ten seconds or so, to conclude what you claim exactly because we know that the model you used is simply irrelevant and not suitable for the cases in question.

     Show what your statistical model is, as you have been asked to do many times in the past, a request which you have ignored as usual time after time, and after that we can check whether your calculation is worthy of reference and whether the conclusions do indeed follow from the assumptions.

106. another one
     You wrote "You don't have to prove that something that has no proof of its existence doesn't exist - you just have to admit that there are indeed things for which there is no evidence for any decision, and therefore ignorance is the only state you can be in."

     I don't know of anything that exists and there is no evidence of its existence.

     They once thought that the earth was the world and that everything revolved around it. Copernicus (and also Aristarchus 1800 years before) showed us that we were wrong.

     We used to think that man was something special, until Darwin (and Antximander 2000 years before) showed us that we are like the rest of the animal world.

     It seems that the only place left for the Creator is in the creation of the universe. We thought we needed to explain "out of nowhere", and we thought there was a problem with that. But - today we know that this is not true, thanks to people like Kraus, Susskind and Hawking.

     There is no more room for "agnostic" - today we already know. We live in a wonderful time!!!!!

107. Uncle
     Mud is all there is when you add water to what was on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.
     There are not so many other options - either in the mud or in the sea.

108. If a Halacha state is on the way, then you need to know where it comes from, right?
     Since I know you're pretty belligerent about this- so I'll put it this way-
     Is there really a policy that prevents evolution studies or is there another factor why the studies are so low?
     Are evolution studies in secular schools what will prevent a change in the status quo to the detriment of the secular?
     In my opinion, there are better ways to "win" in this fight - and evolution studies are not part of it.

109. Enough of your nonsense, the Halacha state on the way is the big elephant that all the politicians see, know about its existence but ignore it.
     But full of politicians, why does this oblige you?

110. You need to bring stronger evidence for the phenomenon than 4 teachers.
     You can be agnostic about all possible gods if you define their divinity as transcendent.
     I do not know what the difference is.

111. another one,
     This discussion exists not only on the science website but also in schools. The discussion here started/continued because it became clear that they are not ready to teach evolution in Israel to the general public and are intimidating teachers and telling them not to dare to pronounce the word evolution.
     If they would leave us alone and teach what science states is a fact, beyond any shadow of a doubt, there would be no discussion and as I have already written, they do not prevent the teachers from teaching evolution because they think it is wrong (Newton is also wrong but no one states not to teach it) But because they fear she is right.

     You wrote: "You just have to admit that there are indeed things for which there is no evidence of any decision and therefore ignorance is the only possible state of affairs"
     That's obvious but that's not the point here. There are endless topics that you can invent and then say that we know nothing about. Why is the concept: God, different?
     As you wrote I claim that Chen and Ronnie (a random name I pulled from China's phone book) is a god. Are you agnostic about his divinity? And if not, why is my god less good than God, Zeus, etc.?

112. Who won't leave you alone?

     You enter this discussion - no one is forcing you.
     There are people who believe that not only does God exist, he also revealed himself to their prophets so and so years ago.
     Whether it's prophets from the Tanakh or Ron Bard.
     I don't believe it - but I can't say that 100 percent it didn't happen.

     You don't have to prove that something that has no proof of its existence doesn't exist - you just have to admit that there are indeed things for which there is no evidence for any decision and therefore ignorance is the only state you can be in.

     Words have power - but you are trying to take my words out of their context - I think in the context I used there is no real difference between the words and therefore your trouble is unnecessary.

     Your attitude towards agnosticism is not new.
     The idea that agnosticism is cowardly atheism is not something I haven't seen argued before.
     But considering the fact that you are largely an atheist at about the same level that I am an atheist, it is not clear to me exactly what the problem is.

113. another one,
     But then there is no value to your question "Both claims have exactly 0 evidence. Why is one better than the other?"
     All I'm saying is that until they bring me evidence, and I don't care what, they should leave me alone, but I don't need, under any circumstances, to prove or even explain why, something for which no evidence has been brought, doesn't exist.
     Just as I don't need to explain why the Shrike (from Dan Simmons' Hyperion story) doesn't exist and you did write that - "It is possible to confirm the existence of paragons. Just bring one to the lab....” And to this I reply that it is impossible to disprove their existence or non-existence and this is the correct comparison.

     That's atheism for me.

     On the subject of thinking/believing, as I wrote, in my opinion words have power and that's why I ranted. You are welcome to ignore it.

     And regarding the evidence, I have no idea and it is not my duty to provide it, but I would like to present that, unlike the defeatist attitude of agnostics, I am not ready to state that I will never...

114. Shmulik
     If the question was scientific then there would be a doctor of confirmation.
     Since the question is not scientific, the rules of scientific discussion cannot be applied to it.

     Please don't pretend to interpret the words I use differently than I do.
     Believer and thinker are quite similar words in the context I used - you can't take the words out of context to tell me what I said.

     OK - what do you think is evidence for the existence of God? That if you see her you will receive a strong confirmation of the existence of God?

115. For the benefit of readers,
     Something that xiangzhua wrote, passed like this without reference. And so he wrote:
     "On the one hand we have scientific evidence that the world is only thousands of years old, and on the other hand we have evidence that it is several billion years old"

     If we ignore the fact that a billion years can only be written as a million-thousand years only, there is no scientific evidence that the Bible is only thousands of years old (meaning no more than 10000 years), not even once.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Lack_of_scientific_acceptance

116. another one,
     Regarding the obligation of proof, absolutely not true. There is not a single scientific article in the world, which will be worded in such a way that the research hypothesis is proven and the rest of the researchers in the world have the duty to disprove it. That is, my argument stands: the one who wants to argue with me about God, should prove his existence and at least bring evidence. Feel free to ask Camila if she has ever written a scientific paper, and didn't think that the sole burden of proof was on her.

     Regarding the believer versus the thinker, I repeat that words have power and if you get used to using the word believe, instead of the word thinker, it permeates and the word believer gets "privileges". It could be that if you tried to use the word "think" instead of the word "believe" in the same sentence, you would not have written the sentence as it is, because you would have required yourself to use thought processes and perhaps you would have come to a different conclusion.

     You wrote, "You dare to ask for evidence that I believe will never exist" and I would suggest you be careful about making predictions about the things we will decipher. As Yoga Bera (the philosopher who was a baseball player) said: it is difficult to predict, especially about the future (in fact, Niels Bohr said this for the first time) and he also said that - "the future is not what it used to be"

     In connection with what xiangzhua writes about the intelligent planner, I would like to remind everyone who follows, that already 3 times the man admitted that it is God (in another thread) and when he was asked about the qualities of that planner he answered as follows:
     "Regarding the abilities of the planner. I can't expand other than the fact that from what our eyes see the capabilities are beyond imagination."

     From read:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/?#comment-371765

     What does he think God is doing about it? Does he guide the process, literally, every micro and micro second?
     God, even though he has a huge number of galaxies, each of which has more than 100 billion suns to manage, he chose to create single cells, plants and animals and at some point even dinosaurs and then, when he had enough of the dinosaurs, he sent an asteroid to destroy them and then, huff and puff Secretly, moved molecules and spliced ​​DNA so that finally man was created? It is known, as a fact, that a great deal of the life that was created here, has already become extinct, therefore, what exactly is the case here? What does he want from our lives that he says God planned everything?

117. Miracles,
     "There are several possibilities for the beginning of life, among them: a random result of combining molecules, the result of a chemical-physical process such as Cairns-Smith's mud"

     Note that with the mud theory you are approaching the position of creationism, that man was created from dust
     - so be careful not to close a circle with the Bible,
     By the way, what will happen if they really prove that life emerged from dirt and mud?

     xianghua
     I have not yet answered the question of what the intelligent planner wants from us and if he does not want why do you insist
     Prove it here

118. Miracles
     I am not a creationist and I do not believe
     Please include me in this group only because I disagree with you on many other things.

119. xiangzhua
     Nice that you believe in science when it serves your interests. You mess with DNA, and don't believe it has been around for a million years. I am interested in the scientific basis for this statement of yours.

     Another one, xiangzhua and the rest of the "believers"
     Let me explain a little about evolution and make it easier for you. You will soon see why.

     1. Evolution, according to the Darwinian concept, is the same process that happens when a form of life reproduces fulfills 3 conditions: variation, selection and inheritance. The result will be constant changes in the way of life.

     2. In all life forms we know there is a DNA-based "memory" mechanism. At a basic level, all the differences between the life forms we know are the result of changes in DNA. In reproduction, the DNA is passed on to the offspring and thus there is inheritance.

     3. The rate of reproduction is geometric and therefore the limits of the environment are reached, such as space or food, and therefore a selection is created - this is a natural selection and this is important.

     4. So far - we have shown that in the animal world that we know there is inevitably evolution.

     5. It can be shown that this evolution, which is based on searching for a local maximum in small and random steps, is stronger (in the sense of computer science) than anything we call "planning".

     6. Evolution does not talk about the formation of life, for the reason that evolution needs a replicating mechanism with variation and memory. There are several possibilities for the beginning of life, among them: a random result of combining molecules, the result of a chemical-physical process such as Cairns-Smith's mud and also an intelligent feature (I promised you). I personally believe that life began as a result of a chemical-physical process - for example, we know that all 20 amino acids are formed in nature.

     7. The evidence supports evolution - there is a mechanism, there is variation and similarity between living beings, there are fossils, there are mutations and we are even witnessing today the formation of new species before our eyes. There are many mechanisms that can easily be explained with the help of evolution.

     8. The evidence does not support design, certainly not the design of an intelligent entity. The world is extremely cruel - most animals do not die a natural death and do not even reproduce. We have "bugs" in all kinds of body systems. Living things have mechanisms that are "excesses" of evolution - like "goosebumps" when it's cold to us. There are mechanisms that have evolved a large number of times - eyes, for example. There are organs that have many uses on the one hand and it cannot be concluded that someone designed them for a purpose - like the tail of the vertebrates for example.

     9. Planning shows not only a planner but also a goal. If someone designed our world then we are tools meant to serve a purpose. I wouldn't want to be in such a world, and I certainly wouldn't have children in such a world.

     I'm sorry for the length, I didn't have time to shorten it…..

120. Camilla, as I said, I wish the world would be a trillion years old. In any case, this does not concern the question of whether nature requires a planner or not.

     "You are trying to convince that there is scientific evidence that supports that the age of the world is a few thousand years, but you actually believe that the correct age is what the scientific consensus claims and that is that the age of the world is about 4.5 billion years? You yourself are not convinced by the arguments you bring, so why are you bringing them?" - Not really. I actually think they are good arguments, it just doesn't interest me that much as stated.

     "You didn't show anything about the "problem of times" in the context of evolution, what you did do was to assert a straw man argument based on a statistical model that is completely wrong."- Inaccurate. I have demonstrated well why there are no gradual intermediate stages between systems. And hence the gradual scenario is also not possible, and hence only astronomical jumps come into consideration.

     "You say that you have shown implausibility, I say that you have not shown anything that even comes close to that and any of the readers who have not yet seen the arguments are welcome to look" - he really is welcome to look.

     "Regarding the dinosaur, I don't know the details, so first I will find the source and read it, but assuming this is indeed the case, has it occurred to you the possibility that the perception that DNA cannot be preserved for a period of millions of years might be wrong under certain conditions?"- Do you know a way in which dna can survive for so long? If not, why should we take this claim seriously?

     "Which of the possibilities is more likely (that is, how many scientists from several fields had to be wrong), that tissue can be preserved under very certain conditions or that the world is several thousand years old?" - good question. Even though you assume the desired here. Let's do some tidying up. We have evidence that contradicts each other - on the one hand we have scientific evidence that the world is only thousands of years old, and on the other hand we have evidence that it is several billion years old. In such a situation it is possible to argue at the very least that the claim of the age of the earth is in scientific doubt. Anyone who calls himself a skeptic or a scientist will do this. In addition, how will you explain the fact that humanity itself claims that according to its various traditions the world is thousands of years old and not tens/hundreds/millions of years old? Before you jump, think about it this way: how do you know when some historical event happened? Let's say one that happened a few hundred years or thousands of years ago. And how would you explain stegosaurus engraving on ancient buildings? (one of many). By the way, if we extrapolate on the piles of snow on Mount Hermon, we will arrive at the fact that its height in the near future may be several tens of kilometers. The same goes for other things like the development of a German shepherd or a mischievous squirrel.

121. Shmulik
     -----
     another one,
     What do you mean and?
     You asked: "Both claims have exactly 0 evidence. Why is one better than the other?" And the answer (again and again and again) is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant is the one who says that God exists because before this claim is made, the subject does not exist at all. I hope for you that you will never end up in court as a defendant, but if you do, you will understand what the concept of burden of proof means. I hope I'm not insulting, but I've already repeated over and over again the issue of the burden of proof and you for some reason ignore it.
     -------
     Burden of proof is a legal term and has no place in this discussion.
     In the sentence we talk about "reasonable doubt" and not any doubt.

     We are talking here about doubt - about uncertainty and we have no evidence
     -------

     Another small point I owe you, something I did not accept his challenge. A thinker and a believer are not close, in fact they are completely opposite. The "thinking" moshav said that you applied logical processes and came, in a rational way, to some insight, in this case, that there are issues that we will never have a clue about, while the "believe" moshav means that I didn't try to think and you don't care if there is evidence to the contrary of your opinion, but you accepted some kind of example .
     We use these words, many times, as synonyms but in fact they are opposite in meaning.
     ------
     Well, then we disagree on the interpretation of these words.
     Basically in many cases rational thought has an irrational root anyway so the difference is smaller than you think.

122. Shmulik,
     Just a small correction to your words. You wrote: "Ilo moshav "believing" means that I didn't try to think and it doesn't interest you if there is evidence to the contrary in your opinion, but you took some example upon yourself."
     A believer is a person who receives some kind of example (and I say - some "value", but of course there is a debate about this) when he knows that he did not receive this belief from rational motives, or from one logical conclusion or another (including of course any scientific claim ). Sometimes he will also know that that belief stands in deep contradiction to what is required from the rational. A person who does not know this at all does not believe.
     The believer receives this faith from God, and from this desire alone. In terms of his knowledge, his will is primary, that is, it is a primary given. I believe that only psychology can try and understand the believer's motives on this point, but in terms of the believer's knowledge, there is no reason for that desire. There are indeed complex and deep psychological motives that probably brought that believer to faith, but these do not increase or decrease in terms of his religious decision.

     And as I said, in my eyes a person who justifies his belief with logical deductions, does not believe at all, he simply adheres to one or another belief.

123. withering,
     Consistency is the key word of xianghua. Here, here he claims that the chance that the Bible is several thousand years old approaches 30%:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/#comments
     Search: "don't know if 30%"
     This means that at most he estimates that there is about 70% that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is the scale.

     another one,
     What do you mean and?
     You asked: "Both claims have exactly 0 evidence. Why is one better than the other?" And the answer (again and again and again) is that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant is the one who says that God exists because before this claim is made, the subject does not exist at all. I hope for you that you will never end up in court as a defendant, but if you do, you will understand what the concept of burden of proof means. I hope I'm not insulting, but I've already repeated over and over again the issue of the burden of proof and you for some reason ignore it.

     Another small point I owe you, something I did not accept his challenge. A thinker and a believer are not close, in fact they are completely opposite. The "thinking" moshav said that you applied logical processes and came, in a rational way, to some insight, in this case, that there are issues that we will never have a clue about, while the "believe" moshav means that I didn't try to think and you don't care if there is evidence to the contrary of your opinion, but you accepted some kind of example .
     We use these words, many times, as synonyms but in fact they are opposite in meaning

124. Shmulik
     ----
     Regarding the agnostic cowardice, then again, I have shown you that I do not know more than you or anyone else, I only "dare" to ask for evidence. The agnostic boasts that he is as if "open minded" without making the most basic effort to ask for evidence and therefore he is white noise. He's just getting in the way. What does the agnostic want to establish? No meat and no milk. Completely fur.
     ---------
     You dare to ask for evidence that I believe will never exist
     What kind of evidence do you expect to find?
     There are many people who see miracles in their lives - but there will always be a scientist who will say that there is a scientific explanation for that miracle -
     So what testimony what evidence do you think you can get?
     I am not asking for evidence because there is none - evidence is a scientific term that I think is orthogonal to the world of religion.
     What I want to establish is that in any debate that discusses such a subject, science has no place because science is not able to confirm something like this and it cannot refute either.

     ---------
     Did you meet the challenge? Have you opened all the phone books in the US, China and Russia and declared that you do not know whether to accept the divinity of any of the names there? As I remember, I declare that one and all of the names there as almighty. Inevitably the agnostic must immediately shout that he does not know whether I am right or wrong. Would you claim that an agnostic is obliged not to know of gods that were created only in the past and not in the present? It is absurd.
     Do you understand why the concept of agnosticism (at least according to my limited interpretation here) is ridiculous?
     -----
     I don't know if it's one of the names there, I don't know if it's the flying spaghetti monster, or an invisible pink unicorn. - I have complete uncertainty regarding the whole part of reality that is beyond my understanding - this is a circular definition - what is beyond my understanding is beyond my understanding.

     -----
     Yes yes, it is clear that in science there are no absolute proofs but only refutations of theories. xianghua, for example, claimed that intelligent design is a scientific theory, but when I asked him to try to formulate a refutation for it, he ran away as long as he could and claimed that he did not have to meet the obligation of refutation (nor the obligation of prediction, but that's another story). How many times have I already asked for evidence for the existence of the religious God, and if I sinned and wrote the word proof, without explaining what I meant, then the intention is a much stronger proof than the theory of relativity proves, because here we are talking about the most controversial issue, and therefore proof and particularly strong evidence is needed.
     ----
     The discussion is never about intelligent design - intelligent design is not a scientific theory under any definition -
     Saying that something happens because God willed it that way can be true if there is a God - but it is not a scientific description - and it does not help anything.
     The discussion is about the strength of the theory of evolution in Papi itself - and since most of the cattegers who talk about intelligent design are not good scientists at the basic level because of their biased perception - it is likely that most of their understandings are quite weak.
     ----
     The discussion we had here was about the importance of evolution studies and whether it should be taught to everyone, all seculars, all biology students or the existing situation.
     I said that in principle it is about the chicken and the egg and there is no need to teach evolution to secularists because they will remain mostly secular and religious and certainly the ultra-Orthodox will reject evolution and remain overwhelmingly religious even if you force evolution theory on them - what's more, there is enough religious thinking that knows how to adapt itself on one level or another to the theory The evolution.
     If you believe that the theory of evolution is important for studies from its intrinsic value, that's another discussion, but for your rhetoric, Nissim's and my father's - I get the impression that this is a fight against the connection between the state here - a fight that I broadly support - I just don't think it's the right way.

125. Shmulik
     -----
     Here's the situation: a man sits down and shows him an amusing episode of Bill Maher. The concept of God has not yet been created. Suddenly, someone appears and interrupts the man and tells him about God. The man says, bring evidence and hope, this is how the atheist was created and just before the hope, a claim was created that requires proof and then someone with God is going to murder those who do not accept his God.
     ----
     Yes and?
     ———–
     As with all your questions about atheism, you are wrong again. The atheist does not say there is no God, at least not the atheist you are currently arguing with. This atheist is basically saying, bring evidence for a religious God.
     -----
     There is no evidence - that's part of the story - most religions require blind faith.
     If you don't believe there is absolutely no God then we think about the same.
     It's just not clear why you're talking about evidence on a non-scientific topic.
     -----

     I'm open to anything, just bring evidence. And that's exactly the problem with this stupid term atheist. I will repeat again: there is no special concept for the non-acceptance of a claim without evidence such as a-Leprekonst (non-existence for freaks) or a-Shrike (does not believe in the Shrike) or anything else so why the non-acceptance of the concept of God without evidence received a concept, I have no idea But that doesn't mean I have to subject myself to these concepts.
     ------
     It is possible to confirm the existence of fragments. Just bring one to the lab….
     ------
     I use this term freely because it tells people roughly what I think about religion, but we have long ago dived into the depths of things, so I hope that now my opinion on the matter is clearer
     -----
     It may be that we are much closer in this angled opinion than it seems at first.

126. xianghua,
     Well, I read a little about the findings they discovered about the dinosaurs and the picture became a little clearer for me, but I want to do a little test and see if you are able to review the existing literature on the subject (there isn't too much), check what exactly the discoveries are, what criticism was voiced, what alternative proposals were offered, and which which turned out to be correct. Let's see if you are able to be fair and simply report what has been discovered and what is known as of this moment, without changing what the researchers are reporting on and without inventing interpretations on behalf of yourself or the Discovery Institute. Once you see that you are able to do this we can discuss the possible meanings that emerge from these findings.

     These are the articles in which the findings were presented for the first time:

     Schweitzer, Mary H. (1993). "Biomolecule Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 13: 56A.

     Schweitzer, MH; Cano, RJ; Horner, JR (1994). "Multiple Lines of Evidence for the Preservation of Collagen and Other Biomolecules in Undemineralized Bone from Tyrannosaurus Rex". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 45A.

     In the meantime I am waiting for the answers to the questions I asked you from my two previous messages regarding the age of the earth.

127. "All dating methods are based on extrapolation"
     It's just nonsense.. To prove an age older than 6000 years, you certainly don't need extrapolation.. What's more, there are calibration tables that are good enough even with radiometric methods..

128. Xianzhu
     Extrapolation is a useful and convenient tool. On what basis do you rule it out?

     another one. You define God in a way that is meaningless. Something perfect, victorious and almighty. This is Amsalem's ontological claim and it is meaningless. It doesn't give any additional information, just a hypothetical concept.
     What does it do for me?

     It has no effect on our world. not interesting. ?

129. another one,
     The answer to your question is simple. "You started and therefore you have to prove."
     Here's the situation: a man sits down and shows him an amusing episode of Bill Maher. The concept of God has not yet been created. Suddenly, someone appears and interrupts the man and tells him about God. The man says, bring evidence and hope, this is how the atheist was created and just before the hope, a claim was created that requires proof and then someone with God is going to murder those who do not accept his God.

     As with all your questions about atheism, you are wrong again. The atheist does not say there is no God, at least not the atheist you are currently arguing with. This atheist is basically saying, bring evidence for a religious God. I'm open to anything, just bring evidence. And that's exactly the problem with this stupid term atheist. I will repeat again: there is no special concept for the non-acceptance of a claim without evidence such as a-Leprekonst (non-existence for freaks) or a-Shrike (does not believe in the Shrike) or anything else so why the non-acceptance of the concept of God without evidence received a concept, I have no idea But that doesn't mean I have to subject myself to these concepts. I use this term freely because it tells people roughly what I think about religion, but we have long since dived into the depths of things, so I hope that now my opinion on the subject is clearer.

     Regarding the agnostic cowardice, then again, I have shown you that I do not know more than you or anyone else, I only "dare" to ask for evidence. The agnostic boasts that he is as if "open minded" without making the most basic effort to ask for evidence and therefore he is white noise. He's just getting in the way. What does the agnostic want to establish? No meat and no milk. Completely fur.
     Did you meet the challenge? Have you opened all the phone books in the US, China and Russia and declared that you do not know whether to accept the divinity of any of the names there? As I remember, I declare that one and all of the names there as almighty. Inevitably the agnostic must immediately shout that he does not know whether I am right or wrong. Would you claim that an agnostic is obliged not to know of gods that were created only in the past and not in the present? It is absurd.
     Do you understand why the concept of agnosticism (at least according to my limited interpretation here) is ridiculous?

     Yes yes, it is clear that in science there are no absolute proofs but only refutations of theories. xianghua, for example, claimed that intelligent design is a scientific theory, but when I asked him to try to formulate a refutation for it, he ran away as long as he could and claimed that he did not have to meet the obligation of refutation (nor the obligation of prediction, but that's another story). How many times have I already asked for evidence for the existence of the religious God, and if I sinned and wrote the word proof, without explaining what I meant, then the intention is a much stronger proof than the theory of relativity proves, because here we are talking about the most controversial issue, and therefore proof and particularly strong evidence is needed.

     xianghua,
     Except that we tested Gil's age, again and again, and the number that was obtained, again and again, was obtained according to the same equations with the help of which this computer was created. As much as you can call it proof, it is proof

130. xianghua,

     You wrote: "Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I'm rewording it. Your claim about the age of the earth being over 6000 years is not scientific because it cannot be tested."

     Are you serious? Have you heard about dating using seasonal rings in trees? There is data for a period of time of more than 11,000 years. Where do you get such stupid statements like your quote above? Not only is this a claim that can be examined in completely different ways (tree rings, layering of layers in lakes, continental migration, mountain formation, cooling of the earth, mineralization of fossils, formation of stalagmites and stalactites, radioactive decay and many other ways and evidence).

131. So I don't understand...
     You are trying to convince that there is scientific evidence that supports that the age of the world is a few thousand years but you actually believe that the correct age is what the scientific consensus claims and that is that the age of the world is about 4.5 billion years? You yourself are not convinced by the arguments you bring so why do you bring them?

     You have not shown anything about the "problem of times" in the context of evolution, what you have done is make a straw man argument based on a statistical model that is completely wrong. According to the "proofs" you brought to the lack of probabilistic programming due to a time limit, other things that we know to occur naturally could not have been created, but they are created, naturally, every day, that's a fact. The fallacies in this argument, as well as the misinterpretation of articles you brought at the time that did not at all support what you said and sometimes even explicitly said the exact opposite, have already been presented on this site in several discussions and I see no reason to refer to it again. It is almost needless to say that as usual you ignored any reference to the same failures you presented on the subject as you also ignored the citations and misinterpretations you brought from scientific articles. You say you showed improbability, I say you didn't show anything that even comes close to that and any of the readers who haven't seen the arguments yet are welcome to look them up (I think they appear more than once in an article in science entitled "evolution or bivolution". To rule out the possibility of an event when you don't even know Defining what the correct statistical model is is simply stupid.

     Regarding the dinosaur, I don't know the details, so first I'll find the source and read it, but assuming this is indeed the case, has it occurred to you that the notion that DNA cannot be preserved for a period of millions of years might be wrong under certain conditions? Which of the possibilities is more likely (that is, how many scientists from several fields had to be wrong), that tissue can be preserved under very certain conditions or that the world is several thousand years old?
     I know that regarding the second option, thousands of scientists (if not tens of thousands) in all the main fields of the exact sciences (physics, chemistry, geophysics and biology) had to be wrong. But wait, why am I asking you which is more likely, after all you said the answer yourself, if you accept what scientists know about the age of the earth then it is clear that the first option (assuming what is found is indeed true) i.e. that the assessment of the stability of the tissue over long periods of time , is the wrong one, then where exactly is the problem? That scientists are able to change their opinion given good evidence?

132. Eric, maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I'll rephrase that. Your claim about the age of the earth being over 6000 years is not scientific because it cannot be tested. All dating methods are based on extrapolation. And it is known that extrapolation is a sure recipe for falsification.

133. I also studied quantum theory and it is very far from my understanding. I can lecture and calculate, but I don't understand why it works.
     ----
     'Why' is not a scientific question.
     The scientific question is how.
     Just because something is hard doesn't make it unfathomable.
     ———–
     Why did you decide that God is omnipotent? Where does this statement come from???
     ----
     Definition of God - There can definitely be a God who is not sublime among us and one day we may find him.
     But to his extent it is the sublime version that is debatable here.
     ----
     Why did you decide she was eternal? Maybe he created the world and then disappeared? Maybe God comes and goes. Does he care about humans?
     ----
     Possible does not contradict any of my arguments.
     ----
     I definitely agree with you that engraving is very far from being a science. That's what Sarah does, it seems to me.
     ---
     If what do you agree?
     Which section are you referring to?
     What exactly am I "engraver"?

134. Xianghua
     I can show you two animals of a different species, which is manifested in the fact that they cannot breed with each other due to genetic differences.
     In the sequence of animals between them there is the ability to breed between them.
     That is, a sequence of animals that at the ends are of a different species

     These are facts and don't just argue..

135. I also studied quantum theory and it is very far from my understanding. I can lecture and calculate, but I don't understand why it works.
     Why did you decide that God is omnipotent? Where does this statement come from???
     Why did you decide she was eternal? Maybe he created the world and then disappeared? Maybe God comes and goes. Does he care about humans?
     I definitely agree with you that engraving is very far from being a science. That's what Sarah does, it seems to me.

136. "Eric, I mean that the age of the world is not proven at the level you are aiming for. It is only a matter of faith."

     xianghua
     Are you into clues? Because they are not clear to me..

     I wrote:

     "Xianghua, the age of the world is not 6000 years, and you will also find delusional people who claim that (even with academic degrees)"
     And you answered me: "Eric, you are wrong about the age of the earth." (?)
     What exactly were you trying to say and how does it relate to what I wrote..?

137. Eric, I mean that the age of the world is not proven at the level you are aiming for. It is only a matter of faith.

     Shmulik, I demonstrated as well, you are still welcome to solve the scaffolding problem I presented in the previous thread.

     Miracles

     "Evolution happens at a dizzying pace. Broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts are all varieties of the same wild plant. These varieties were developed in a very short time and yet they look completely different." - These are alleles of the same genes, no new system separates them.

     "I know of two cases where we see new species that have evolved before our eyes. That is, evolution of species is proven by evidence." - see above. This is not a new creature and I doubt if it is even a new species (also depends on how you define a species). According to this logic, a secular is a new species because it is not customary to marry someone ultra-Orthodox. Sounds funny, right?

138. Miracles
     ----
     You wrote that it is impossible to "prove the existence of something that is by definition incomprehensible to humans". 2 simple questions.

     1. In your opinion, is quantum theory perceivable by humans?
     2. How do you know that God is incomprehensible? This is probably the essence of the difference in our opinions.
     -----
     1 Quantum theory is not sublime among us - it is just not intuitive in many cases - I studied quantum theory
     And I must point out that if you want a scientific theory that makes it difficult for a religious-stanartic belief then quanta are much more problematic than evolution.
     2. This is one of the definitions I associate with a supreme, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being.
     If an omnipotent being chooses to be hidden from humans - then its discovery is by definition impossible and therefore it is sublime from our understanding.

139. Miracles

     So if the existence of God cannot be proven - who cares? Again - how is it different from Big Pot?
     It's nonsense and it's nonsense...

     ———–
     Bigfoot can be confirmed - if someone finds an ape-like animal - or an ape-like fossil in the appropriate area - and scientists will check and see that it is a new legitimate animal - then for me this is a pretty good confirmation that Cape "Bigfoot" is indeed
     I cannot imagine scientific confirmation of the existence of an almighty God - nor can I imagine anything that would disprove his existence, therefore the subject is not a scientific subject.

     -----
     Just as I am not agnostic about Bigfoot I am also not agnostic about God.
     -------
     So you know with absolute certainty that there is no God?
     -------

     The distinction between the 2 beliefs is puzzling to me. Is the reason the number of believers in God? The fear of making mistakes? Why do you differentiate between Bigfoot and God?
     -------
     Bigfoot is a tangible entity that if it exists then there is no stopping it from being discovered and measured and it is not by definition sublime from their perception and therefore subject to the laws of science.

     Shmulik
     --------

     In general, not everything you can't disprove, you accept. So no, I'm not a deist but an atheist, at least in the sense that I want evidence.
     By the same token, are you a schmollicist? One who thinks that at this moment, we were all created with all our memories including this thread? After all, there is no way to contradict this claim, but that does not mean that I have evidence for the correctness of my claim, and therefore you are exempt from dealing with the question. What is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without reference
     ---------
     There is a difference between invalidating the claim "there is God" and establishing the claim "there is no God"

     Both claims have exactly 0 evidence. Why is one better than the other?- Regarding them we were created right now with all the memories?- There is no way to disprove it- but on a philosophical level - it is completely possible- there is a difference between how you live your life and a philosophical discussion.
     ---------
     You repeatedly use the word faith and you write that an atheist does not believe in gods and in the world of my concepts, faith has nothing to do with it. The issue is evidence. Bring evidence, we'll talk. After reading what you wrote about agnosticism, I stand by what I wrote. It sounds like white noise and cowardly evasion to me. How do I know there is no god named Zeus, I don't even think about it. You need to bring me evidence of its existence. In the same way that you asked me to check how I know there is no Zeus, I ask you to open a telephone book of the USA, China and Russia, go through each and every name and tell me that you are agnostic to the claim that there is a god named: . Agnosticism in this sense, is white noise.
     ———————–
     So if you don't think about it, you don't know - right?
     You are not the first to call this view cowardly.
     This is one of the things that atheists claim sometimes that upsets me - that one must decide - not deciding is cowardice and evasion - so no, I'm not saying that I haven't decided, I'm saying that the discussion is by definition sublime beyond the understanding of humans and therefore lack of knowledge is the only thing.
     I loathe people trying to mobilize science to disprove things it cannot disprove just as much as I loathe creationists who mobilize "science" to promote their beliefs.
     Zeus is another debatable because he is not infinite in his mythology - but a supreme and sublime being? How do we discuss something that we have defined as sublime among us?
     And what does white noise have to do with it?
     -------
     Maybe the following sentence is a semantics sin (here and only here) but you repeatedly use the word believe in an irrelevant place. Since words have power, I bother to bother about it. Here is an example. You wrote that "you believe that no one can pretend to know". The word believer is not related to the topic. Do you think no one…
     What's the difference, you ask. The difference is that the believer will not change his mind in the face of evidence, whereas you, I hope, will change your mind if you are shown that it is possible to know...
     ------
     Believer and thinker in this case coincide -
     A believer can stop believing - to believe is simply to think that something is true.
     It has many religious connections but not only - you can believe a person - until you see evidence that he is a liar. You can believe in God - until you lose your faith like many do.
     You can believe there is no God - until someone succeeds in making you repent.
     Faith can change, what you are talking about is the fact that religion is more resistant to change than science and changing the opinion of a religious person than a scientist is more difficult - but not impossible.
     There are religious people who converted, religious people who returned the question - and atheists who returned to repentance - all their "beliefs" changed over time.
     And as I have already said - in science - or in the legal system there is no such thing called "proofs" - proofs are only a mathematical concept - we start from an axiom and show a rigid connection that leads to a certain claim being necessarily true - this is "proof"
     Everything else has 'evidence'.

140. another one
     You wrote that it is impossible to "prove the existence of something that is by definition incomprehensible to humans". 2 simple questions.

     1. In your opinion, is quantum theory perceivable by humans?
     2. How do you know that God is incomprehensible? This is probably the essence of the difference in our opinions.

141. xianghua
     Life began to flourish on Earth over 3.5 billion years ago. This is not negligible by any measure, not even in terms of the age of the universe, about 13.72 billion years.

     Evolution happens at a dizzying pace. Broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts are all varieties of the same wild plant. These varieties were developed in a very short time and yet they look completely different.

     I know of two cases where new species have evolved before our eyes. That is, evolution of species is proven by evidence.

     Evolution is simple both in theory and in practice. And moreover - it is more "strong" than any intelligent process. That is to say - even if someone planned life, or created the world in a certain state, because the conditions for evolution are met then it will inevitably occur.

     It's really simple.

142. xianghua,
     You did not demonstrate that 4.5 billion years is an insufficient time for natural selection and most scientists do not agree with you, in another thread I presented you with the subject of the multiplicity of worlds to which you had a stammering reference https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/

     And the clock->clock argument has been hidden for a long time

143. xianghua
     You wrote 'Eric, you are wrong about the age of Kadhava', are you trying to dance about the 2 weddings?

144. Camila, do you want to discuss a little about the age of the world? Come on...

     First I will clarify right now. I do believe that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years (not that it helps the theory of evolution anyway, as I demonstrated, it is zero time on a geological scale). But I'm also open to the scientific evidence showing just the opposite. The question here is whether you are open to scientific evidence that indicates a young world. In such a case, how do you think the DNA of a nearly 100 million year old dino ended up?

     David, on the contrary - there is no complex conclusion here. The claim that a clock is replicating -> therefore a watchmaker, is an obvious claim for every child in kindergarten. And you don't need a lot of thought for it.

145. another one,
     Nissim constantly writes in two lines what I have to write much more... not fair.

     In general, not everything you can't disprove, you accept. So no, I'm not a deist but an atheist, at least in the sense that I want evidence.
     By the same token, are you a schmollicist? One who thinks that at this moment, we were all created with all our memories including this thread? After all, there is no way to contradict this claim, but that does not mean that I have evidence for the correctness of my claim, and therefore you are exempt from dealing with the question. What is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without reference.

     You repeatedly use the word faith and you write that an atheist does not believe in gods and in the world of my concepts, faith has nothing to do with it. The issue is evidence. Bring evidence, we'll talk. After reading what you wrote about agnosticism, I stand by what I wrote. It sounds like white noise and cowardly evasion to me. How do I know there is no god named Zeus, I don't even think about it. You need to bring me evidence of its existence. In the same way that you asked me to check how I know there is no Zeus, I ask you to open a telephone book of the USA, China and Russia, go through each and every name and tell me that you are agnostic to the claim that there is a god named: . Agnosticism in this sense, is white noise.

     Maybe the following sentence is a semantics sin (here and only here) but you repeatedly use the word believe in an irrelevant place. Since words have power, I bother to bother about it. Here is an example. You wrote that "you believe that no one can pretend to know". The word believer is not related to the topic. Do you think no one…
     What's the difference, you ask. The difference is that the believer will not change his mind in the face of evidence, whereas you, I hope, will change your mind if you are shown that it is possible to know...

146. another one
     So if the existence of God cannot be proven - who cares? Again - how is it different from Big Pot?
     It's nonsense and it's nonsense...

     Just as I am not agnostic about Bigfoot I am also not agnostic about God.

     The distinction between the 2 beliefs is puzzling to me. Is the reason the number of believers in God? The fear of making mistakes? Why do you differentiate between Bigfoot and God?

147. Miracles,
     I tried, really, not to respond to your words because they are not worth a response, but I couldn't hold back.

     Dawkins is an atheist fundamentalist preacher and I abhor fundamentalism, including fundamentalist preaching, on any issue, and of course this is also religious.
     He is dangerous because his view is anti-pluralist by nature and I assume that in the future (in the next 10-20 years) it will already be really dangerous, meaning that his fundamentalist atheism will pose a real danger not to religion, but to human life. It won't be him, of course, but his foolish followers who, in the name of enlightenment, will go on a crusade against all religions, on the way they will destroy or try to destroy everyone who doesn't think like them.

     Dawkins makes me suspicious or curious? Hahahahaha.
     He is perhaps the person who most succeeded in making me fortify my positions, because I usually try to be skeptical of my own positions. His ignorance and shallowness only showed me that people like me have no reason to be embarrassed by such atheists, because unlike them, I will never be convinced of my views to the point of fundamentalism.

148. "In contrast to evolution, which is only a hypothesis that is contrary to the new studies"
     xianghua
     You make blanket and ridiculous statements for what? Use an understatement every now and then, it adds credibility..

     As for the dinosaurs, it's a whole class! of extinct creatures, and there are dozens of methods for dating fossils and geological layers. Even the Nobel Prize is part of the matter.. Same as cosmological methods for determining the age of the universe

     "This is because no self-respecting scientist can deny that this is a fact"
     Even a simple person who does not respect himself cannot deny that this is a fact and I directed you to their forum - go argue with this bunch of unbelievable delusional people, or with Dr. Peter Duesberg..

149. Shmulik
     ———————–
     Absolutely, I'm not just arguing about semantics, I don't understand how you got to the point that it's about semantics and I really, really like Bill Maher precisely because "he has no solid political views and a big mouth".
     There is fundamentally, a huge difference between a master planner and the religious God, who is responsible for the Ten Commandments, forbids us to masturbate, hates gays, wants us to kill raped virgins (all in the Torah by the way) and all.
     --------
     So are you a deist?
     Regarding the way you phrase it, my impression is that it is not.
     --------

     For the umpteenth time, the word atheist itself is ridiculous precisely because of all the assumptions you pour on us. We are not a population, in the way you mean population.
     If I do play the game, let's talk about me and me alone, because I can't vouch for how someone else who calls himself an atheist behaves or believes or whatever. As I see it, and as Bill Maher put it so well, all I ask for, as an atheist, is evidence. That's it.
     ------
     Atheism is a philosophy and it is true that everyone has their own version - as soon as a word is used it has a general intention that says something - those who call themselves an atheist probably do not believe in gods of any kind - usually not even in their abstract concepts - i.e. Deism or Pandeism.
     ------
     As with any other subject, until there is no evidence, I do not refer to an object for which there is no evidence, just as I do not refer to the claim that we were all created in this second, with all our memories. Remember that we are now playing the game in which, in my opinion, you are also an atheist, because you do not believe (I assumed) that the god Zeus or evil or Vishnu exist because you have never received evidence for it and even those who once believed in them, no longer exist.
     ------------
     The best definition of my worldview is probably agnostic - but since I don't know many agnostics and I haven't read too much on the subject, I'm careful not to define myself that way - defining me as a kind of atheist is accurate enough - I guess -
     Basically, I believe that no one can pretend to know anything about a subject that cannot be known about, and therefore there is the idea of ​​faith - in my opinion, science has no place in this subject because science does not have the tools to deal with these questions - should we ask these questions? That's another discussion.
     ---------
     Regarding agnostic, as I see it, that word is even more redundant because what does it actually mean? that you don't know? And Allah. It's easiest to say "I don't know" and that means that inevitably, the agnostic is also "agnostic" about Zeus and Hyperion and Athena and whatever name I throw at him, like that ad infinitum. An unnecessary word. White noise.
     ———————–
     Broadly, agnosticism is a philosophical view that says that it is impossible now or even forever to know about the nature of things that are sublime from human understanding such as the existence of a deity.
     It is similar to weak atheism in which one does not believe in God but does not completely rule out the possibility of his existence (of a religious or deistic god)
     This word is not superfluous because atheism is more and more interpreted as strong atheism - therefore the word agnostic comes into use.
     --------

     The atheist is not an Atheist and therefore does not deny a Deist because one cannot deny such a one and everyone will forgive me, I don't really understand what Fantaism is. Spinoza's God sounds to me like saying something beautiful without saying anything and I would be particularly happy on this point, to be corrected on my mistake if it exists and in any case, an atheist, as he is called, a-theist and not a-fantasist or a-deist
     --------
     Again an argument about semantics-
     Hugo Chavez can be anti-American - even though he lives in America.
     Hamas is anti-Semitic - even though it is an organization made up of "Semitic" people.

     So you don't rule out in advance the existence of a deistic god, that's good - you really can't rule out such a thing in advance - there's no way to refute it or confirm it - but if you don't rule out such a thing, how can you rule out the attributes attributed to him by different religions - how can you To know that there is no Zeus and Hyperion and Athena? This more abstract question is how being less ridiculous than the classical pantheon makes it more real?
     I also don't understand exactly what Eli Spinoza is - that's fine. It can be a theistic religious view and it can be an almost atheistic view.

     ---------------

     Regarding your question about what evidence I am asking for, I do not know and do not want to be required to do so. Let the theist bring proofs and evidence, we will talk. What's more, the evidence has to be very strong, because it tries to prove an entity that is outside of physics. Please, come on.
     ------
     There is no such evidence-
     You cannot prove the existence of something that is by definition incomprehensible to humans.
     An infinite entity is unimaginable and therefore it is impossible to prove or confirm something like that.
     Of course, something like that cannot be refuted either.
     -----
     Basically, as Bill Maher said, atheism takes so little of my time. Amen
     --------
     Yeah, sure.

150. another one,
     Absolutely, I'm not just arguing about semantics, I don't understand how you got to the point that it's about semantics and I really, really like Bill Maher precisely because "he has no solid political views and a big mouth".
     There is fundamentally, a huge difference between a master planner and the religious God, who is responsible for the Ten Commandments, forbids us to masturbate, hates gays, wants us to kill raped virgins (all in the Torah by the way) and all.

     For the umpteenth time, the word atheist itself is ridiculous precisely because of all the assumptions you pour on us. We are not a population, in the way you mean population.
     If I do play the game, let's talk about me and me alone, because I can't vouch for how someone else who calls himself an atheist behaves or believes or whatever. As I see it, and as Bill Maher put it so well, all I ask for, as an atheist, is evidence. That's it.
     As with any other subject, until there is no evidence, I do not refer to an object for which there is no evidence, just as I do not refer to the claim that we were all created in this second, with all our memories. Remember that we are now playing the game in which, in my opinion, you are also an atheist, because you do not believe (I assumed) that the god Zeus or evil or Vishnu exist because you have never received evidence for it and even those who once believed in them, no longer exist.
     Regarding agnostic, as I see it, that word is even more redundant because what does it actually mean? that you don't know? And Allah. It's easiest to say "I don't know" and that means that inevitably, the agnostic is also "agnostic" about Zeus and Hyperion and Athena and whatever name I throw at him, like that ad infinitum. An unnecessary word. White noise.

     The atheist is not an Atheist and therefore does not deny a Deist because one cannot deny such a one and everyone will forgive me, I don't really understand what Fantaism is. Spinoza's God sounds to me like saying something beautiful without saying anything and I would be particularly happy on this point, to be corrected on my mistake if it exists and in any case, an atheist, as he is called, a-theist and not a-fantasist or a-deist

     Regarding your question about what evidence I am asking for, I do not know and do not want to be required to do so. Let the theist bring proofs and evidence, we will talk. What's more, the evidence has to be very strong, because it tries to prove an entity that is outside of physics. Please, come on.

     Basically, as Bill Maher said, atheism takes so little of my time. Amen

151. xianghua,
     Suppose you are right and there is an intelligent planner who planned evolution, as science has discovered.
     Obviously the intelligent planner also planned the minds of the scientists,
     So why doesn't he leave them any more traces
     Its existence is obvious and everything has to be done by complex logical reasoning and hypotheses.
     And how are we supposed to treat that intelligent planner?

152. Miracles
     ----
     I don't believe in Bigfoot. Does that mean I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist? exactly!!!
     Simple Hebrew - "I don't believe that something is true" is the same in definition as "I believe that something is not true".
     -----
     There are different degrees of atheism and there is the definition of agnostic.
     By and large, the definition I know of an atheist - that I have seen atheists speak and testify about themselves is that they believe there is no God and this is their worldview.
     If you define yourself as an atheist but you don't completely rule out the possibility of some deity then you are a weaker definition of an atheist than others.
     Me too if they ask me a binary question if I am an 'atheist' or a 'believer' then I will answer 'atheist' - it is much closer to my world view than religious.
     ———–
     You say that religion does not give prediction. I assume you mean it only has an effect after death, in the afterlife? This also explains why it is irrefutable.
     That's what you mean?
     ------
     Not exactly - each religion has its own prophecies and some also have the possibility of refutation - like those who claim that the world will end on a specified date and then it won't...

     But for the question of the existence of God as it is perceived in most currents in monotheistic religions - there is usually no good predictive possibility and there is no way to confirm or refute.
     Therefore this is not a scientific question.

153. Shmulik

     Absolutely not true. at 100% The word atheist itself is ridiculous since there is no special word for "disbelief in Santa" or disbelief in fairies or disbelief in the existence of Martians.
     Let's assume that there is a reason for the word atheist, let's examine what it says and what it doesn't say. First one must distinguish between deism and theism. The deist believes that there is a God who created everything but is not the religious God and God is the rational planner. The theist, on the other hand, goes further and believes in a religious god (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.). A deist is not a theist.
     ---------
     Are you arguing about semantics here?
     ok so i have a question -
     An atheist is one who believes there is no God
     Or one who does not believe in God but also does not believe there is no God?
     is a nickname for both-
     Because the way I know it
     One who believes there is no God is an atheist
     And one who believes that one cannot know is an agnostic.
     ---------

     Regarding your wrong claim that atheism is a belief, the claimant, that there is a religious God, needs to be proven and until then, I do nothing and do not address the claim, therefore there is no belief here that there is no religious god just as I have no belief that there are no freaks or a spaghetti monster. All the atheist says is: "Bring me evidence for a religious god and I will believe in him"
     Theism is not deism and the onus of proof is on the theist and no one else.
     ----------
     It is not clear to me what the "proof" you are looking for is-
     In general, "proof" is a mathematical term - not scientific - there are no proofs in science, only confirmations - there are no absolute truths
     Because there are no axioms.
     Even if tomorrow Bat Kol comes out of the sky and says "I am God, I exist, do what I say" at least I had serious doubts that it was God.

     Wait a minute, don't atheists deny the deistic god? Or the pantheist? Because most of them actually do deceive.
     At least that's how it can be understood according to your arguments.
     ------------------
     In conclusion, as homework, watch Bill Maher's great clip on the subject:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc
     --------------
     Yes because Bill Maher is a good example of tolerance and open philosophical discussion. And he has solid political opinions and a big mouth.

154. I am anonymous…..

155. another one
     I don't believe in Bigfoot. Does that mean I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist? exactly!!!
     Simple Hebrew - "I don't believe that something is true" is the same in definition as "I believe that something is not true".

     You say that religion does not give prediction. I assume you mean it only has an effect after death, in the afterlife? This also explains why it is irrefutable.
     That's what you mean?

156. another one,
     Absolutely not true. at 100% The word atheist itself is ridiculous since there is no special word for "disbelief in Santa" or disbelief in fairies or disbelief in the existence of Martians.
     Let's assume that there is a reason for the word atheist, let's examine what it says and what it doesn't say. First one must distinguish between deism and theism. The deist believes that there is a God who created everything but is not the religious God and God is the rational planner. The theist, on the other hand, goes further and believes in a religious god (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.). A deist is not a theist.

     Regarding your wrong claim that atheism is a belief, the claimant, that there is a religious God, needs to be proven and until then, I do nothing and do not address the claim, therefore there is no belief here that there is no religious god just as I have no belief that there are no freaks or a spaghetti monster. All the atheist says is: "Bring me evidence for a religious god and I will believe in him"

     Theism is not deism and the onus of proof is on the theist and no one else.

     In conclusion, as homework, watch Bill Maher's great clip on the subject:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc

157. There is a difference between not believing in God and believing in the non-existence of God.
     Yes the question is not scientific because it does not give a prediction and cannot be refuted.

158. another one
     I do not agree with you that there is no God is a belief. It's like saying there is no Bigfoot is a belief. Where is the difference here?

     Why do you say that the question of the existence of a creator is unscientific? Do you mean that the argument does not provide an explanation? Irrefutable? Or maybe he doesn't have the ability to predict?

159. Miracles - also atheism which is a belief that there is no God is a belief.
     Even religious people have doubts.
     There are lots of non-scientific questions.
     And the existence of a higher power/creator of the world/God/flying spaghetti monster
     It is not a scientific question.

160. xianghua,

     How old do you think the earth is?

161. Eric, you are wrong about the age of the earth. It is good that you agreed that you will not find geologists who claim that the earth is flat. This is because no self-respecting scientist can deny that this is a fact. In contrast to evolution which is only a hypothesis that is contrary to the new studies. Regarding the age of the world: it is a fact that DNA samples of dinosaurs 100 million years old and more have been found, while scientific research claims that dna cannot be preserved for more than a million years and more under preservative conditions. In addition to that you will have to explain all the fossils found out of place (good luck, there are hundreds of them) and human evidence of dinosaur paintings.

162. R.H.
     Why exactly do you hate Dawkins (Co.)?
     Because they show that there is no need for "God"?
     Do they meet your feelings?
     Do they make you doubt?
     Are you curious?

     A person like me has a real problem with religion. Bertrand Russell once said that the most dangerous thing is that people believe something without any evidence. That's how it is in religion.

     What is interesting is why religion exists - why people have a tendency towards religious belief. There are interesting and convincing explanations for this. These explanations are based on many studies and a great deal of thought. But a religious person does not question his religion and accepts it as an axiom (or because of family, social pressure, or simply a terrible fear).

     The existence of a creator is a scientific question. There are actually no non-scientific questions…. And science has spoken.
     And one of the most eloquent speakers is Prof. Richard Dawkins.

163. Safkan,
     I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
     From my acquaintance with Roy, he is really not an anti-religious preacher (preaching which I also dislike). He is a scientist, and it is natural that he would like to lecture on scientific matters. The fact that he chose to marry in a civil marriage really does not make him anti-religious - it is a legitimate choice for those who do not want to be forced to marry through the rabbinate, in a marriage that includes the humiliation and humiliation of the woman.
     And I'm not an atheist, and I hate Dawkins and Co.

164. Yes, only they had no such proof but only the usual creationists/intelligent design followers' grievances that evolution does not explain such complexity or nonsense.

165. SAFKAN
     You got out of a moron

166. Skeptic, these are secular schools, and you also want to prevent the scientific truth from them, for my part the converts will want all day in religious schools, I wish they would be satisfied with them.
     And besides, atheists are the greatest believers of science - because science does not need God to explain the phenomena of nature, therefore being an atheist is not a crime, it is the greatest commandment that can be done to humanity.

167. SAFKAN

168. "Eric, if you look carefully, you will find that there are scientific references from scientific journals."

     xianghua, the age of the world is not 6000 years, and you will also find delusional people who claim that (even with academic degrees)
     And there are other examples from other scientific fields:, such as Thabo M'Baki, the former president of South Africa who warmly embraced Dr. Peter Duesberg's conclusions that HIV is not related to AIDS (for reasons of convenience, of course..)

     Regarding the ridiculous 'Flat Earth Society' 🙂 Did you really expect that today with all the satellites and documentation that exists I would expect that there would be scientists who for religious reasons would deny the fact that the earth is round..? I was surprised to find out that there are such crazy people at all, and guess what: the original association was founded in the belief that: - Beautiful! You guessed it right - the fact that the earth is round does not fit the Bible..

     What is ridiculous in my eyes is people like Dr. Natan Aviezer, (wow! He is a doctor!) the pathetic attempt to interpret the contradictions with the faith at any cost. Or the 'interpretive approach', the 'limiting approach', the transcendental approach'.. 🙂

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2

169. Full disclosure regarding Roi Tsenza.
     ===================

     Roy Tsenza claims in this article that he volunteered to teach evolution in schools to promote science and nothing else. This is an impersonation: Roy Cezana is an anti-religious preacher who uses lectures on the theory of ablution as leverage for his anti-religious preaching. In this respect,Roey Tsezana is an anti-religious preacher posing as a science teacher.

     If anyone doubts that Roy Cezana is an anti-religious preacher, he can find out through Google what the lists he published in various places are. According to a rough estimate - at least 10 percent of the lists published byRoey Tsezana are lists that preach against religion.

     In addition. For those who doubt that Roy Cezana is an extreme anti-religious person, he should familiarize himself with his way of marriage, according to the lists he published. According to Roi Cezna, he got married in the Czech Republic in a civil marriage (around 2009) because he refused to get married in Israel through the rabbinate.

     What would happen if a penitent volunteered to give a lecture at a secular school on the subject of "Israel's thought"? They would immediately jump on this site and say that this religious lecturer is not allowed to lecture on the subject of "Israel Thought" in a secular school, for fear that he will try to convert. On the other hand, whenRoey Tsezana tries to preach an anti-religious sermon at the secular school he is talking about, the anti-religious immediately jump in and respond on this site and say thatRoey Tsezana is being fooled into teaching science at that school. What hypocrisy of the anti-religious.

     Full Disclosure:
     =========
     I am a complete atheist but I respect religious people. I do not tolerate anti-religious tips (and neither do religious preachers), especially I do not tolerate anti-religious tips that pretend to be something other than what they really are (for example, I do not tolerate anti-religious tips that pretend to be science promoters). Furthermore, I think that much can be learned from religion on a philosophical level, for example useful principles of morality and education; It is possible to learn religious philosophical principles (morality and education) without accepting the religious mitzvah (for example, it is possible to learn religious philosophical principles and at the same time believe in the existence of God). I am in favor of true intellectual pluralism and against intellectual coercion from any side. Anti-religious preaching is a dark mental compulsion. Limiting thought pluralism only in a secular direction is not true thought pluralism, it is fake thought pluralism.

170. Abby, I'm guessing this is a video from an unknown guy on YouTube, right?

     If you pay attention, you will see that he is talking about the initial list from 2005, today the list has close to 700 doctors and more. Out of the biologists he contacted, several dozen did not answer him back at all, so it is funny that he claims that he is left with two. Another thing is that he changed the claim they signed. In any case, even if there was only one biologist who does not support evolution and a single piece of evidence, that would be enough to disprove an entire theory. This is how science works. Just as we saw with Prof. Dan Shechtman and Darwin himself.

171. another one,
     Sorry???
     of: https://www.hayadan.org.il/only-515-pupils-in-israel-examin-in-bagrut-in-evolution-040212/

     Answer from the biology professor at the Ministry of Education Ruti Mandelevich to MK Wilf's request: "I am responsible at the Ministry of Education for biology studies in the upper division (grades XNUMX-XNUMX)."
     "Unfortunately, only students studying and specializing in biology are exposed to the theory of evolution (approximately 15,000 students per age group). In these classes the study is based on central ideas in the field of knowledge as we understand them today. These ideas serve as the organizing elements of the curriculum and form the core of the content. The theory of evolution is one of the main ideas that appear in the curriculum: "The various species of living beings change gradually over time (eons), due to changes that apply to the hereditary information under the influence of environmental and internal factors. According to the currently accepted explanation, the genetic variation between individuals and the process of natural selection are the main factors for the existence of the huge variety of creatures that lived in the past and those that exist today. The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the uniformity of the model as well as the differences in the form".
     In ecology (a core subject that requires all biology students), the concept of adapting organisms to their environment is included, an adaptation that is a product of natural selection (this is the main point of the theory of evolution).
     Because of the sensitivity of the subject in certain groups, the in-depth study of evolution is only taught as an elective subject.
     "I'm sorry that studying biology is not compulsory for all students." Mendelovich summary.

     Now, if you know the education system, you probably know that a teacher alone does not decide what to teach and how. Everything is dictated from the level of the firm itself, one of whose CEOs under Gideon Sa'ar was the same Gabi Avital. Now, do you think it is reasonable to assume that Israel, which is degenerating into ultra-Orthodoxism at a dizzying pace, has the luxury of asking for proof that will stand up to the test of a court of law? Obviously not and we need to demand transparency and correct the factual situation (that only about 600 students are tested on the subject) and as I wrote, you are welcome to assume that everything was done by chance and that everything will be fine. I don't suppose so. It is clear to me that there is a deliberate hand here to hide this issue from Israeli students and as a parent, I see imparting the above knowledge to my children as one of my most important duties.

     Regarding hypocrisy, note the argument: a person is a hypocrite if he has one in his mouth and one in his heart. If we believe them and accept as a fact that they really believe that God was created a few thousand years ago and they are not closet atheists, the educated among them, those who are aware of the existence of quantum mechanics, are hypocrites. The others (those who believe that God was created several thousand years ago) can be said to be ignorant

172. I also don't know any biologists who support evolution, there was someone who checked the list of 100 biologists and it turned out that there are only two biologists among them - and both at a Protestant university and not at a normal academic institution, so they are committed to religion and not to science.
     All the rest were computer engineers, forest rangers (like biologists), etc.

173. Eric, if you look carefully, you will find that there are scientific references from scientific journals.

     Regarding the flat earth - do you know any geology doctors who claim that the earth is flat? Second step - is there evidence for their claim? If not, why should we take their claim seriously?

174. xianghua,
     Not only did you not refute, but you were refuted, again and again. All your general claims (God as a scientific theory, the age of God, the weakening of one theory strengthens the other, the concept of complexity that has never been defined, about 30% that God is several thousand years old, and more) everything has been refuted.

     You have never provided a single detail regarding the intelligent planning except for the fact that there is an intelligent planner and some "prediction" that is not a prediction, because in fact, there is nothing to doubt. You admitted 3 times that the planner is actually in God and when you were asked to provide details about him, you answered, and I am copying from the thread you referred to:
     "Regarding the abilities of the planner. I can't expand other than the fact that from what our eyes see the capabilities are beyond imagination."
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/#comments
     It does sound very solid and convincing. Really a scientific theory for the most part.

     One of the funniest things you said, regarding the "intelligent" planning, is this:
     "In this field, it also has a clear prediction - we will find systems that are unable to develop in a gradual process. A prediction that is verified time and time again. On the other hand, the supporters of evolution are grasping at straws."
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-22/#comments

     Your sentence is so funny, you really made my day. Here's a theory: gates are not scored every second of the day for the Maya bee, under every tree in the XNUMXst century, because the freaks prevent it. My theory is proven all the time because no goals are indeed scored.

     The absolute majority of scientists claim that the entire world of life developed exactly like this, in a gradual process, without planning and planning, the absolute majority of scientists claim that intelligent design is not a scientific theory, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design#National
     And even the US Federal Court ruled this.

     And in any case, by definition, there is no such thing as a "theory" that only predicts that another theory is not true and only provides predictions that something will not happen. As I have already written, at most, refuting claims refer only to the theory they claim to refute and in no way strengthen another theory. The theory of relativity not only said that Newton was wrong but also provided a positive prediction.

     In short, quite funny

175. moment
     Did you say dinosaur DNA samples? are you on drugs?????

176. By the way, I refer you to the following website xianghua that claims the earth is flat:

     http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%92%D7%95%D7%93%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%97%D7%94

177. "Not one but 200:

     http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_occurring_fossils"

     Oh really.. is this the site you found..?

178. No fossil has ever been found in a place that is not possible according to evolution

     I have no intention of dealing with your lies anymore

179. This is for you xianghua if we are talking about age dating methods like DHA:

     http://multimedia.huji.ac.il/video/outreach/1112/madua%202011-2012/m10.html

180. Mytholiga=mythology

181. Nissim and Shmolik, this is probably the last time I will respond to your messages. The number of times I refuted them and you ignoring them as if nothing had happened makes it look like a game of attrition. In the future, whoever wants is welcome to correspond with himself.

     Miracles,

     "Evolution predicts that no kangaroo fossils will be found in our area." - Nonsense. Learn a little about biogeography and you'll find plenty of fossils found in places they shouldn't be. The evolutionists solve this by claiming that those creatures swam on a raft and crossed an entire ocean, and in pairs because otherwise they would have no one to breed with. Is this the mythology you believe in? In addition, if tomorrow a kangaroo fossil is found in our area, the evolutionists will solve it with the claim of parallel evolution or that the kangaroo must have somehow traveled on a ship or the stories of One Thousand and One Nights.

     "The story "Noah's Ark" predicts yes." Not true either. First remember that we are talking about intelligent design and not creationism. Secondly, even according to creationism some claim that the flood was not worldwide. It is quite possible that the kangaroo has lived in Australia ever since its creation. Also remember that according to creation there were several lungs.

     "Identical genes in distant species? Of course there is and that's how it should be." - Error. According to evolution, we are not supposed to, for example, have identical genes in distant species but are missing in species close to them. There are many reasons for this, but since we are talking about complex issues in biochemistry, and since as usual I am being ignored here, I do not intend to go into it.

     "Gradual steps? There is a paucity of fossils and most of them are of species that have no descendants today. Who is even looking for a sequence in such a situation??" - to quote Darwin's words about the necessity of such fossils?

     "If you show me one problem with fossils (one) - I cut into tokens." - not one but 200:

     http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_occurring_fossils

     Do you cut into tokens?

     "There is no scientist in the biological field who does not recognize evolution." - again, not one but several hundred. Among them are the evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, the biologist Jonathan Wells, Douglas X, Scott Minich and much more.

     "In the field of science in general, I am not sure that there are scientists who do not recognize evolution. There are some idiots who are not scientists at all, like Michael Behey” - Michael Behey is a doctor of biochemistry. what degree do you have

     "Prof. Moshe Troup is a liar. He is a creationist who quotes other creationists." - They are all liars. Right. By the way, I'm not talking about the article itself, but the thread that developed in it. There is scientific evidence from dinosaur DNA samples. Look there again.

     By the way, miracles, I can follow a whole thread about the mythologies of the first replicator (with all the accompanying theories such as the rna world). But again, since we are talking about complex topics in biochemistry (for example learn a little about pcr and dna denaturation) I don't intend to go into it again. Anyone who wishes can refer to the article "evolution studies in the Holy Land", where I detailed the evidence for intelligent design and why it is eminently scientific.

182. Shmulik - You can assume that the sky is green when no one is looking at it.
     You can assume that a flying spaghetti monster and an invisible pink unicorn.
     But I have not yet seen a link to a more serious study that shows that there is a deliberate trend from above to prevent studies of evolution in secular schools.
     Maybe I missed.
     And an anecdote is not proof.
     Nor three or four anecdotes.
     You can call creationists a lot of things - you can call them liars, you can call them pseudo-scientists, but the fact that they use computers to convey a message that seemingly contradicts part of quantum theory - does not make them hypocrites - is an incorrect use of the term and the context you used is grasping at straws as well so.

183. another one,
     I'm not ready to roll my eyes and assume that those who comment here are simply ignorant. You're welcome to assume so and anyway, it doesn't really matter. What changes is in Israel 2012, under Gideon Sa'ar and the Likud, teachers are threatened not to mention the word evolution in the classrooms.

     Anyone who wants to, is welcome to take comfort in the teachers' "consideration of others". This is of course not the case. I assume the worst of all, which is completely based in the light of the links I provided, that there is a deliberate strategy to hide evolution from the students of Israel, not because it is not true, but because it is indeed true, and this scares the religious public (the one that does not trust itself) and the secular public, as usual, Cancels himself in front of the religious and ultra-Orthodox public and gives up his future.

184. You can't call it hypocritical.
     They do not know that there is this connection and therefore they are simply ignorant.
     A hypocrite is someone who preaches some moral standard that he himself does not uphold.

185. another one,
     Reverse Gota, Reverse.
     If we use your story, the healers really thought they were casting out evil spirits and that at most makes them ignorant but certainly not hypocrites.

     Exactly as you wrote in your second paragraph. We are all ignorant to one level or another, but people who are ignorant, who will not try to make claims, which clearly require a certain level of knowledge.

     Here, we have people, who are not completely ignorant, but trendsetters who are aware that the computer works, after all, they use it every day. The computer works because the scientists and engineers correctly solved the equations of quantum mechanics and this is proof, unequivocally, that the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct. We managed to produce a reliable technology.

     However, when it comes to the dating of the Earth, which conflicts with their worldview, and by the way, the dating of the Earth is not done by carbon 14, we use the same science, the same tools and the same equations that we use to develop the computer, but because of their worldview, For these results, they are not ready to believe. They state that the results are fundamentally wrong. Therefore, their use of the computer, hypocritical.

     They are closet atheists.

186. Shmulik -
     In the classical period they knew in ignorance of a significant number of medicinal plants whose effect was real (and then developed medicines from them) - does the fact that they thought the plants worked because they drive away evil spirits make them hypocrites?

     Those who develop computers and program them can know very little about the physics of the solid state of the semiconductors there (which is indeed quantum physics) and still know how to program them.
     Surely those who use them.
     Ignorance is not hypocrisy - even pseudo science is not hypocrisy.

187. Evolution Big Problem
     As Shmulik wrote to you, the beginning of life has nothing to do with evolution. The problem is that there are several theories for the formation of life and we may not know which one is correct. There are theories from people like Cairns-Smith, Manfred Egan and Jacques Monod. And there's more that I can't remember right now but I can track it down if anyone's interested.

     Fossils are nice to have. There is an extreme paucity of fossils. Every fossil discovered today is a reinforcement of evolution. I will write it again, because there are those who do not understand Hebrew: a fossil discovered today is a reinforcement for evolution.
     Every fossil ever found SUPPORTS evolution. Not a single fossil disproves evolution in any way.

     I hope they finally get it.
     And now for what you wrote - I suggest you read The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, where he describes exactly what you are looking for.

     It saddens me that nonsense is being said……

188. another one,

     They are hypocrites because the science behind computers - quantum mechanics, is the same science behind the radioactive decay that is used to date past events. Carbon 14 is used to date events up to about 50000 years.

     Evolution Big Problem,
     The first problem is not a problem of evolution. Other teachings deal with this and indeed, it will be fascinating to see if a proper scientific solution to this question will be found.
     Regarding the second problem, there were countless references to "this problem" and I assume that Ethnologia, Nissim, Kamila et al will be able to refer more specifically to this issue.

189. The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Neo-Darwinian scientists admit this, recognizing that proposed evolutionary scenarios do not model reasonable conditions on earth, and could not have produced anything like the complex life we ​​see all around us–even single-celled life.

     The second-biggest problem involves the development of complex invertebrates, animals without a backbone, from single-celled life. How did this transition occur? A robust fossil record of one-celled life has now been found, and of course a truly abundant record of marine invertebrates can be discovered everywhere, from clams to sponges to jellyfish to starfish, etc. The "explosion" of life in the Cambrian system of strata continues to baffle evolutionists, for there is no record showing a transition from tiny single-celled life to complex invertebrates. There are innumerable fossils of invertebrate ocean bottom life, even those with no hard outer shell, but no ancestors of these invertebrates have been identified.

     Sorry for English response, I am not skilled in Hebrew hand writing
     but I am reading Hebrew

190. Shmulik I do not agree with creationists at all
     I don't understand why it is hypocritical to use computers and believe in a young earth.

191. And one more thing about the younger Kedvah. As I have shown, science claims beyond any reasonable doubt that the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years and anyone who claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, should not use computers, GPS, toasters, fly in a plane and drive a car, since the same equations, which are at the base of all the technology around us, claim that the age of the Earth is, as mentioned, 4.54 and in no way several thousand years.

     To accept the technology but secretly believe that God is young is ridiculous hypocrisy of the first order.

192. The last Camilla
     ----
     That is, in your opinion, physics and chemistry are science, but biology, most of whose modern development is closely related to the knowledge and understanding it imparted, and still imparts, is not science in your opinion? Or is biology yes and only evolution is not a science in your opinion?
     -------
     Biology is science, evolution is science, I'm not sure when I said otherwise.
     -------
     How exactly do you come to this conclusion? Because that's what creationists and other ignorant religious people say about evolution? Because there are some two and a half scientists, who also happen to be religious, who in their gut feel that there is a fundamental problem with evolution, and this is contrary to the overwhelming and unequivocal agreement on the part of scientists in general and biologists in particular that the theory of evolution is the best explanation by far of any other explanation that has been offered to date, both in terms of compatibility For facts in biology (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, etc.) in geology, paleontology, both in terms of success in predictions in experiments, both in terms of its usefulness in the development of biological technologies and in the development of computer algorithms for a variety of problems in a variety of fields, both biological and completely different. What exactly are your qualifications that qualify you to imply that evolution is not science?
     What do you know that the vast majority of scientists, and it doesn't matter if it's 99% or 99.9%, don't know?
     ------
     I have no links to imply what I did not imply.
     I don't know a better explanation than evolution. I say this now again - intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

     -----------------
     Again you are confused, what is the responsibility of the parents? If at school they put into the heads of the children that there is an imaginary friend who is all-powerful and who punishes, literally, with physical punishment, starting with expulsion from the "home" (the Garden of Eden) and ending with death those who do not believe in him and hear his voice how do you know when and how the seeds of the weeds that were sown There may erupt? So maybe in most secular homes the parents and the surrounding society are strong enough for that boy or girl to be able to overcome that nonsense, but there are some who do not succeed and they degenerate into religion and destroy their family, usually following the instructions they receive from their feedback. What an ugly idiot.
     -----
     I don't know which secular school you attended - but mine didn't do that.
     ------

     Know that 6-year-old children are able to understand evolution very well precisely because these are such simple principles that can be demonstrated through a series of games (such as a broken telephone), observations of facts (such as the general similarity that exists between organisms, gradual processes in which significant changes occur such as in the movement of continents, such as the formation of things that appear to be complex in completely natural processes, such as intermediate forms, both in fossils and in organisms that exist today, which testify to the connection of common origin between structures such as a human arm and a bat wing). When you do this, even small children understand why evolution is such a good and elegant explanation, and all this without even having to implicitly or explicitly threaten them that it will swallow them and their family if they don't accept it.
     --------
     This is very interesting - do you have a link to a study that shows that evolution can be taught as a scientific doctrine to six-year-old children on average?
     ———————–
     On the other hand, the idea of ​​an almighty, violent and cruel God who, for some reason, instead of protecting his believers, hurts them, only God knows why, that's obvious that little children understand, obviously.
     ----------

     Again, it is not clear to me in which kindergarden/primary school for seculars it is taught this way - in mine it was not like that
     Do you have a survey that says the majority are otherwise?
     -------
     When the Torah is presented as the holy book for Jews and that it is also the source of morality that sets us apart, some of the children will predictably understand that the moral values ​​presented there are a standard that must be taken into account. And regarding poor moral values ​​in issues such as homophobia and xenophobia (I assume this is what you meant) and especially discrimination against women, you are right, the religious are not the only ones affected by this disease but they are certainly a central tone if not a leader in it.
     -----
     In my opinion, in most cases, religion is an excuse for evil and not a cause.
     And again, everything you say does not happen in the secular system.

193. Shmulik
     xinghua personally really did not evolve from an ancient ape - it actually represents a slight regression...

194. Miracles,
     There is another thread with xianghua, in which he states that the chance of Kdhua being a few thousand years old is close to 30% (how did he calculate that, to God there are solutions).
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/#comments

     And so he wrote:
     ” Do you think the chance that the earth is several thousand years old is around 30%? "- I don't know if 30%, but it could certainly be close to that.

     Pretty funny, after all.

195. another one,
     In my opinion, it is the biggest revolution, but it really doesn't matter if it is the biggest or the second or the third. It is undoubtedly a huge revolution. Why argue about it?
     The other thing you wrote, that I want to teach evolution so that they will be less religious, is not true. I want them to learn the theory of evolution because of the reasons I said and because it is a fact.

     do i have proof Yes. The data from the Ministry of Education confirm that only a minority of the 5th biology students are tested on evolution. Here, please read the official response of the State of Israel:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/only-515-pupils-in-israel-examin-in-bagrut-in-evolution-040212/

     So yes, I have proof and sensitivity to the public is a code name for fear of dismissal and it only happens in one and only one profession: evolution, and again, not because the religious public (the part that doesn't trust itself) thinks the theory is wrong, but because it fears it is true.

     68 national academies, of which most of the leading countries in the world, think that evolution should be taught. Read:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/twas-against-intelligent-design-3006061/

     xianghua
     ,

     It's hard to keep track of the number of false and demagogic arguments you spread:
     In the first link you gave you were badly defeated

     Regarding the link you gave of Prof. Moshe Troup, you are welcome to believe him. I accept the following link as a more serious link:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

     Besides, your casual argument has never worked in my favor, and the fact that you use it for your own purposes is, well, funny. A scientist emerged into the world, from the scientific school, who contradicted the dominant dogma, usually Christian, and offset more power from the church or the religious establishment.

     Regarding your claim that most scientists support the existence of a designer, well, we've already been down this road, and even then, apart from admitting, 3 times, that your designer is God, who cannot be contradicted, he is not scientific and you refused to define him beyond that, here is a list of associations that are completely opposed to planning The smart ones:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design#National

     Beyond that, the existence of a super architect, who established the laws of physics and has not intervened since then is not a claim that is relevant to evolution. This claim does not strengthen or weaken evolution.

     And that´s it

196. xianghua
     As usual - you are full of nonsense 🙂
     Evolution predicts that no kangaroo fossils will be found in our area. The story "Noah's Ark" predicts that it is.
     to continue - or did you understand???

     Identical genes in distant species? Of course there is and that's how it should be. There are mechanisms that are common to all living production, such as reproduction and metabolism for example. It was very alarming to an intelligent person with no similar genes.

     Gradual steps? There is a paucity of fossils and most of them are of species that have no descendants today. Who is even looking for a sequence in such a situation??

     If you show me one problem with fossils (one) - I cut into tokens.

     There is no scientist in the biological field who does not recognize evolution. In the field of science in general, I am not sure that there are scientists who do not recognize evolution. There are some idiots who are not scientists at all, such as Michael Behey and William Dembsky - they are simply poor liars.

     Prof. Moshe Troup is a liar. He is a creationist who quotes other creationists.
     I have a request for you - direct me to one peer-reviewed Trope article in a recognized scientific journal.

     I fail to understand why you support the theories of Christian preachers. You are a shame to your religion. You can believe the stack of lies you spread. But stop embarrassing yourself and going to pagan sites.

     I want you to understand something - science cannot prove, and does not try to prove, that there is no God. Nor can we prove that there are no dragons. Science does not deal with nonsense.

197. withering,

     What "successful predictions" do you mean? Evolution has no verified prediction. And the prophecies she did have failed miserably. Like for example the fact that identical genes were found in distant species. Something that evolutionary researchers did not imagine at all and rightly so. Talk about the absurd phylogenetic tree? About the lack of gradual steps as required by the theory of evolution? About the problems with fossils? On fragmented equilibrium? On the anti-logic logic in the service of the theory of evolution?

     "What do you know that the vast majority of scientists, and it doesn't matter at the moment whether it's 99% or 99.9%, don't know?" - You exaggerated with the 99%. Most scientists actually support the existence of a designer who created the world. And even if it was true. The same can be said about the theory of evolution at the time. What would she say if we went back to Darwin's time? Would you even then claim that because Darwin is in the minority, evolution is nonsense?

     Miracles, stop embarrassing yourself. Who spoke now of 10 thousand years? I again suggest you look at the thread I linked to, and see for yourself that there is scientific evidence (from a controlled experiment in a laboratory) that the age of the world does not exceed a few hundred (or even tens) of thousands of years. If you mean creationism, then you are probably familiar with the claim of creationists that there were worlds before ours. Or alternatively, that there was an acceleration in the radioactive decay, a claim that is also supported by scientific evidence. But I don't intend to go into that.

198. nofar
     Evolution does not explain how the first replicator was created. This replicator is not necessarily what we call a "cell".
     There are several theories for the formation of the first replicator (the Cairns-Smith theory for example). We don't know which of the theories is correct and we may never know. This is a fascinating point - because there are several theories we are in trouble, not because we don't have any.

     The importance of evolution is that Darwin did 2 things with the wave of his hand. The first is that he canceled the special status that man had until that time - man is one of the animals and our inventions here are completely accidental. The second is that from now on "God" is not bound by reality.

     And I will return to the beginning of your words. How come you created something from scratch? In quantum physics there is no such thing as "nothing". There is no such thing as space without any energy. There is no problem of "there is nothing" because there is no such thing as "nothing".

     Evolution is not lacking. On the contrary - most people do not understand the depth of this discovery (evolution is not a theory - it is a discovery).

199. water lily,
     For your information, your understanding of evolution is very poor and this is clearly evident in your questions which are not relevant to evolution at all.
     There is no need to believe in natural selection because it is a scientific fact that has not only been observed countless times when it occurs in nature and in the laboratory, but it has also been applied and applied on a daily and deliberate basis in science, industry and agriculture, but even if you didn't know all this, then know that natural selection is a necessity given that there is Potemic variation and competition for resources.
     Evolution (the Torah) by the way is not a hypothesis and the most striking thing from your response is that either you were not taught evolution properly or you were taught properly but you did not understand or did not prefer to engage in other things at the time.
     In general, people don't know many things, therefore instead of cutting down material that is so important to understanding the reality in which we live, it is appropriate to teach evolution as part of biology studies to everyone without exception and allow those who really, really want it to choose religious studies as an elective.

200. xianghua
     You are so full of shit that you embarrass yourself. There is a sequence of tree rings going back at least 11000 years. Lie to yourself as much as you want. Leave us in your mother.

201. another one,
     That is, in your opinion, physics and chemistry are science, but biology, most of whose modern development is closely related to the knowledge and understanding it imparted, and still imparts, is not science in your opinion? Or is biology yes and only evolution is not a science in your opinion? How exactly do you come to this conclusion? Because that's what creationists and other ignorant religious people say about evolution? Because there are some two and a half scientists, who also happen to be religious, who in their gut feel that there is a fundamental problem with evolution, and this is contrary to the overwhelming and unequivocal agreement on the part of scientists in general and biologists in particular that the theory of evolution is the best explanation by far of any other explanation that has been offered to date, both in terms of compatibility For facts in biology (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, etc.) in geology, paleontology, both in terms of success in predictions in experiments, both in terms of its usefulness in the development of biological technologies and in the development of computer algorithms for a variety of problems in a variety of fields, both biological and completely different. What exactly are your qualifications that qualify you to imply that evolution is not science? What do you know that the vast majority of scientists, and it doesn't matter if it's 99% or 99.9%, don't know?
     Again you are confused, what is the responsibility of the parents? If at school they put into the heads of the children that there is an imaginary friend who is all-powerful and who punishes, literally, with physical punishment, starting with expulsion from the "home" (the Garden of Eden) and ending with death those who do not believe in him and hear his voice how do you know when and how the seeds of the weeds that were sown There may erupt? So maybe in most secular homes the parents and the surrounding society are strong enough for that boy or girl to be able to overcome that nonsense, but there are some who do not succeed and they degenerate into religion and destroy their family, usually following the instructions they receive from their feedback. What an ugly idiot.
     Know that 6-year-old children are able to understand evolution very well precisely because these are such simple principles that can be demonstrated through a series of games (such as a broken telephone), observations of facts (such as the general similarity that exists between organisms, gradual processes in which significant changes occur such as in the movement of continents, such as the formation of things that appear to be complex in completely natural processes, such as intermediate forms, both in fossils and in organisms that exist today, which testify to the connection of common origin between structures such as a human arm and a bat wing). When you do this, even small children understand why evolution is such a good and elegant explanation, and all this without even having to implicitly or explicitly threaten them that it will swallow them and their family if they don't accept it. On the other hand, the idea of ​​an almighty, violent and cruel God who, for some reason, instead of protecting his believers, hurts them, only God knows why, that's obvious that little children understand, obviously.

     When the Torah is presented as the holy book for Jews and that it is also the source of morality that sets us apart, some of the children will predictably understand that the moral values ​​presented there are a standard that must be taken into account. And regarding poor moral values ​​in issues such as homophobia and xenophobia (I assume this is what you meant) and especially discrimination against women, you are right, the religious are not the only ones affected by this disease but they are certainly a central tone if not a leader in it.

202. Not only mutations, but also horizontal transfer (in bacteria mainly and also in the rest of the animal world, for example, the mitochondria was once an independent living thing) and of course we must not forget another factor - genetic drift that causes the separation of populations and is the raw material for natural selection, which builds on the simple variation within the species (as a result of the mixing of the genes from the mother and father in each generation) that may come out under certain conditions.
     Do not underestimate the power of these slow processes, which in a few million years add up to great diversity. Just like processes in geology.

203. Father, natural selection is the sane part of evolution. But natural selection only selects and does not create. According to evolutionists, given millions of years of natural selection combined with mutations, super complex systems have developed. And these of course have no evidence, as I proved in this thread:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-22/#comments

     If we try to calculate the time in which even a two-component system developed, it will take close to the age of the universe.

     Shmulik, before you jump, regarding the age of the world, you are invited to review the evidence that it is only thousands of years old:

     http://thedos.co.il/Article.aspx?Article=573

     You are also welcome to ignore this scientific evidence of course.

     By the way Shmulik, the argument from a majority does not hold in science, as we saw in the previous thread. According to this logic, Darwin's theory should not have been accepted because he was in the minority.

204. Shmulik
     "
     Friends,
     I am one of those who think that evolution is the greatest scientific revolution that has taken place and as such, it is the basis of rational thinking that removes God from the equation and hence the fear of it by the religious sectors.
     "
     Shmulik - Evolution is nowhere close to being the greatest scientific revolution that has taken place
     Please don't attribute things to her that she doesn't do.
     The secularization that is happening to humanity does not happen because
     The Theory of Evolution.
     "
     The religious do not try to prevent its study because they think it is scientifically wrong but because they fear it is true.
     "
     And you don't want to teach it because it's true - but because you want them to be less religious and you think that evolution studies will somehow do that....

     "
     The most problematic point in the story is this: in Israel, in 2012, teachers are ordered not to teach a science subject, for fear of being fired. This does not happen in any other profession.
     "
     Do you have proof that this phenomenon is reading on a large scale?
     "
     As I recall, this is a subject that 68 national academies from 68 different countries around the world think should be taught.
     "
     and what does that mean? 68 is not such a big number. What is the relevance of academies in the world to the education system in Israel?

205. nofar
     Nor does it pretend to explain it since other disciplines investigate these issues. It is so important because it represents the tremendous computer revolution in which man looked at his environment and said, God is not needed to explain it. Also, evolution is not a hypothesis but a fact that is observed in laboratories.

     But again, that's not the point. The point is that it is in the interest of the religious public (for the most part, the one lacking in self-confidence) to prevent the study of the theory of evolution, not because they think it is wrong. Willingness or unwillingness really doesn't bother them. It can be argued that the theory of relativity is wrong, but they don't climb barricades to avoid teaching it. They demand not to teach it and the spirit of the commander hints at problems and dismissal for the teachers if the word evolution alone is mentioned because they fear it is true.

     Where teachers are threatened not to sow, nothing good can grow

206. Natural selection is the basis of evolution. It's like saying you don't trust the police as a body but trust the individual policeman.

207. In my opinion, evolution is flawed and does not explain many things, for example how single cells were created, how anything in our universe was created from scratch.
     However, I strongly believe in natural selection and I studied the following topic in detail in my biology studies a few years ago (two and a half years). I believe that there are much more important issues than evolution, which according to many is a mere hypothesis.
     Older people do not know basic things such as cellular respiration and the great contribution of plants as producers.

208. Friends,
     I am one of those who think that evolution is the greatest scientific revolution that has taken place and as such, it is the basis of rational thinking that removes God from the equation and hence the fear of it by the religious sectors.

     The religious do not try to prevent its study because they think it is scientifically wrong but because they fear it is true.

     The most problematic point in the story is this: in Israel, in 2012, teachers are ordered not to teach a science subject, for fear of being fired. This does not happen in any other profession.
     As I recall, this is a subject that 68 national academies from 68 different countries around the world think should be taught.

209. withering
     Physics and chemistry and mathematics is not "classics" it is not Shakespeare and it is not Greek plays or music - physics and chemistry is science and their value is exactly equal to how close and how accurate their models are to the measured reality.
     Aristotle's science may be classical - but no one teaches it in schools (as far as I know)

     Second thing-
     I can't testify about all secular schools - but at my place Bible studies and oral Torah studies were learned in a critical way - everything was learned from a secular worldview and precisely from the point of view that it is the study of the Jewish heritage and not an accurate scientific historical description of the creation of the world.
     If you are talking about small children - then it is the responsibility of the parents and their choice regarding how religious they will be.
     Secular children are secular even at the age of 6 and even then they cannot understand the theory of evolution in a reasonable way.

     And regarding your last argument - if you haven't noticed there is no slavery in this country - not even in the ultra-orthodox sector.
     And racism, xenophobia, chauvinism and homophobia are not necessarily private diseases of religious people.

210. For one not so much another…
     The same can be said about mathematics, physics, chemistry, English... All the information about these fields exists and is accessible in books and on the Internet and they are not censored and if the parents/teachers/children want they can be exposed to this content. Reality shows that if you don't make studies of this type mandatory, there will be only a few who will study them (see for example some of the ultra-Orthodox). There is a reason why it is important to teach subjects that represent the basis of modern western human knowledge and just as it is important to teach the classics of mathematics and physics, even if most students will not continue to study these subjects in the academy and will not even use this knowledge directly in their lives, so it is also important to teach the biological classics that one of the main ones is, what to do, the theory of evolution, but unlike other fields that are defined as mandatory, evolution is swept under the carpet only because there is a handful of dark people with far too much power who are afraid of certain scientific truths while consuming in quantities the technology developed through knowledge obtained on the basis of truths Scientifically and sometimes even through the same scientific truths they are so opposed to.
     Your response is naive at best, and perhaps in order to see this for yourself, do a little exercise and replace evolution with "holy" studies in your response, which, unlike evolution, have no justification except for the preservation of religious tradition, for the study of the Jewish tradition, something I identify with its importance, it was enough to study the history of The Jewish religion without contaminating the minds of small children with fairy tales full of vanity as if the things are anchored in some objective reality (historical, logical or conformity to known facts) or even subjective reality such as distorted moral values ​​such as legitimizing slavery, hating the other and oppressing him whether on the basis of sex , of sexual preference or simply because he is not Jewish.

211. Yaron
     We don't have a law that forbids parents to teach their children about evolution, we don't have censorship on the internet and we don't have censorship
     on the television.
     We don't even have a law that forbids teachers to choose evolution, it is a legitimate elective that a small part of teachers do choose,
     If the parents want, if the students want or if the teachers want - they will be exposed to evolution.

212. They are very offended when they are told that man came from ape, it is strange that the (biblical) claim that man came from a lump of mud does not offend them, they probably think that a lump of mud is more like us than a monkey.

213. Ail.A, I so agree with you!!!

     Shame and disgrace that do not allow students in 2012 to reveal the truth about the origin of man.

     Instead they are taught fairy tales.

214. There are many secularists in this country - and only a very small percentage studied evolution in school.
     Strange..- You would expect everyone to be ultra-Orthodox because they believe in the creation of the world apparently....
     You attribute all kinds of virtues of importance to the subject - as if studying evolution in school will make a difference and they will be more secular and will understand biology much more deeply, etc., etc.
     Stop deluding yourselves.
     In secular schools, the Bible is taught in a secular way - there is a comparison with other religions from the time and the division of the Bible into recurring motifs - I would expect that this would have drawn more opposition from religious people than evolution, right?

215. another one,

     How can you not teach lessons about evolution? This is a scientific and well-founded theory that comes to clarify the issue of the origin of man! where did we come from How can you give up something like that?! This is no longer an esoteric topic in science. Students must be familiar with the subject. It is even more relevant than studying physics or chemistry in high school. Perhaps less practical in terms of integrating the students in the industry in the future, but Rabak - if we are talking about the Bible, if we are already doing roots work in the division, it is appropriate that when they come to study chapters in the life sciences, the students should be exposed to the chapter on the origin of life!

     Tello is happening before your eyes: the only reason for the objections to the study of evolution is the contradiction and the slap in the face to any religion whatsoever. A person whose whole life is based on religion simply cannot contain this thing, and even more so will not let his children be exposed to it.

216. another one,
     That's not the point. The point is that in Israel, in 2012, teachers are afraid to teach a subject that they (and I and 68 national academies from 68 different countries around the world) think should be taught.
     In Israel there is an atmosphere of fear: he refuses to mention the word evolution to students.

     Indeed, a light to the Gentiles

217. We will not let the facts confuse us. Creationists, whatever they are, are similar to the followers of geocentrism for whom there is only one justice, everyone must align according to it, otherwise the religious will withdraw from the coalition, oya oya oya. But what to do epor si move nevertheless move move!

218. "Every time I learn that evolution is no longer taught in schools, I feel deep anxiety. A restlessness arises in me as if (or maybe not as if) a disaster is approaching.
     Science aims at the truth and evolution is the most valid theory in science. It has not been disproved for over a century despite repeated attempts. Giving up the study of evolution is giving up the study of science and then all that is left is to believe. Waiver of knowledge."
     - You didn't exaggerate at all...
     Leave it to the scientists to talk about science.
     No disaster will result if evolution is not taught in schools.
     Science does not focus on the "truth" - "truth" is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical concept.
     There are many theories that have not been disproved over a hundred years. Giving up evolution studies is not giving up science studies.
     There are other fields besides evolution.
     So do me a favor all these "science" people and stop lying to yourselves.
     You want a country free from religion - I also want freedom from religion - but please involve science in this - science is not an arena for political desires - saying nonsense in the name of science will not help anyone.

219. Every time I learn that evolution is no longer taught in schools I feel deeply anxious. A restlessness arises in me as if (or maybe not as if) a disaster is approaching.
     Science aims at the truth and evolution is the most valid theory in science. It has not been disproved for over a century despite repeated attempts. Giving up the study of evolution is giving up the study of science and then all that is left is to believe. Waiver of information.

220. Think how amusing it would be to see an election conflict, here in Israel, during which the question would suddenly be asked: do you accept evolution and should it be taught in schools.

221. here also
     But vice versa…

222. In England, a high school that does not teach evolution runs the risk of being on the government allowance
     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20547195
     When are we here?

223. I have "separating religion from the state - Or - Or party headed by Yaron Yadan".
     Do you want the link?

224. Well, it seems that the ad has indeed stopped appearing.

225. I added to the blocked list

226. Hi Avi, try to refresh the page several times and you will see that the advertisement appears, it leads here:

     http://mystic.ask-us.co.il

227. A different one or Rabbi Nachman Mazran
     How nice it is to bring quotes without showing place. Here is one:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

     But faith in God, that's not the point, and here you're missing the point. There is no disputing that the absolute majority of scientists accept evolution (which is a fact) and natural selection as the best explanation available to us, to our origin. On this very site, my father published a list of 68 national academies (that is, 68 academies of 68 different countries) calling for evolution to be taught in schools. 68 national academies is a fact and not just a puzzling statistic.

     What is frightening is that due to fear of being fired by the system (Gideon Sa'ar, Likud...), since it is not really a fear of hurting "religious feelings" ("fear of hurting feelings" is a washed-up phrase for - I am afraid of being fired), teachers are ordered not to teach What the vast majority of scientists know is the best explanation we have for our existence here.

     I can argue with you, and I did, about the refutable statistics you brought up, but they are irrelevant. Only in your mind is evolution a contradiction to God. It is not, it contradicts the Torah and therefore the statistics you brought are not relevant.

     Since when are you afraid to teach the truth because of fear? Once teachers are afraid to teach the truth, and in this context evolution is true just as quantum mechanics or relativity is true (ie the best explanation we currently have), we are headed for a bad, very bad place.

     That should have been my closing sentence, but it's hard for me not to relate to the ridiculous statistics you brought up.
     Even if we assume for a moment that we accept the trending and incorrect quote mining that you did, without showing anywhere, the scientists, those enormous and infinite amount of scientists, about 1646 scientists no less (by the way, in the trial in which the Discovery Institute was thrown down all the stairs by The Federal Court, participated against the Discovery Institute, a small organization called the American Association for the Advancement of Science. About 126,000 scientists belong to this organization) They were not asked if they accept the Torah, the one with the talking snake, the one with the description of creation that appears several times, the one with approval The sale of 12-year-old girls and the one that requires murder, rape. Since this was conducted in the USA, apparently the basic truths that those scientists accept are the basic truths not of the Jewish religion but of the Christian religion. It is with the Virgin Mother, with Jesus who walked on water and with Jesus' resurrection.

     What can be done with statistics.

     May you have a happy and kosher Jewish Sabbath

228. It is possible that everyone sees a different ad from Google. If you give me the address, I can ask to block it. I have an ad for Festigal and an ad for Gior Studios.

229. My father, am I dreaming or on the main page of the website there is a prominent advertisement of mystical counseling?

     "Ask-us, mystics advise in video chat, click here free trial"

230. a different one
     It is proven that there is an inverse correlation between religious belief and intelligence. Are you sure you want to go that way?
     The article you mentioned is nothing.
     And so you don't get confused - here is the study itself, not an article in the newspaper:
     http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/park_conflict.pdf

     Read and evacuate

231. It is not the truth that will become clear to us, but the coercion of the ultra-orthodox majority that is emerging in Israel because of the failures of the politicians - everyone wants to survive in the short term and is not interested in the survival of the state in the long term

232. I am not religious and I have never belonged to any sect. I am simply stating the truth. That will become clear in the near future. At least for some of us..

233. Does the world of science believe in God? According to all surveys, it is exactly the opposite, the higher the education, the lower the percentage of believers.
     The Washington Times is a tabloid, so what is written in it should not be taken into account. Even in these tabloids it is customary to deny global warming.

234. To "Lavi Blizovsky" (do you understand now what the problem is with not using a nickname?)
     It's disturbing, it's also been misused a few times and that's why we included in the site's regulations that this is prohibited. It took a long time to convince Xinghua to do this. Among other things, because it made people think that there are a million people who oppose evolution when it was the same one, and therefore the other side must also behave in exactly the same way.
     The one we didn't allow - it's not me, it's WordPress. Sorry.

235. I really don't understand why it bothers you if the "name" field is sometimes used as a title, on other sites it is usually customary to give commenters a "title" field that can be filled in, this field is useful and allows you to write a short and prominent sentence that is a summary of the content of the message. Here you didn't enable this option and it's a shame, so sometimes you have to use another field for this role.

     In addition, not using a nickname does not allow correct correspondence with that person because only I know that it is the same IP, the other surfers do not know this.

236. My father - indeed there is something to do, just what
     In my opinion, from a strategic point of view, promoting evolution studies is politically problematic and will not advance us much (I also have a problem with forcibly teaching someone something)
     There are more important things - like a civil wedding for example.

237. So "good morning Amichai" - this absolute negation is out of place,
     The world of science has also been proven to believe in God for the most part.

238. The polls state - most scientists believe in God.

     "The "Washington Times": The spirituality of scientists is surprising [excerpt]
     American scientists are surprisingly a spiritual group, according to a survey in which 70% agreed that "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68% classified themselves as spiritual people.
     The survey included 1,646 scientists from 21 research universities across the US, and of all of them, only about a third said they did not believe in God.
     The results pretty much mirror a survey from a month ago, where 76% of 2000 physics doctors answered that they believe in God.
     The sociologist who conducted the survey said that science is often seen as incompatible with religion and spirituality, but the scientists themselves should be asked about this."

239. The fact that they once studied evolution and today they don't, isn't that a violation of the status quo?
     The fact that they once sold chametz on Pesach and suddenly just like that they enacted a law against it, isn't that a violation of the status quo?
     The fact that in the past, lines transporting soldiers would leave on Saturdays at two in the afternoon from Tel Aviv to Kiryat Shmona, and suddenly they stopped and the soldiers had to arrive by other means. Isn't this a violation of the status quo?
     And I can name endless examples of the deterioration towards a Halacha state, because of these things I am active in the Or party.

240. Regarding "hurting feelings" - the atheists in America have learned the trick of the atheists and now they also know how to sue a municipality to remove some kind of Christmas holiday because it hurts their feelings - in other words they have descended to the level of the religious people there.
     Regarding evolution - the education system is not the only provider of information that a child has - a parent can explain to his child about evolution if he wants and there is no lack of information available on the Internet.
     Any talk here is just (in my opinion) an attempt to violate the status quo between secular and religious in the country -
     I don't have a problem with it - but call it what it is - it's not a matter of science - it's a matter of religiosity versus secularism you want a less religious country and you want to change the status quo - I want that too - even though I think the battle over evolution is an unnecessary battle which will not achieve much for us.

     Regarding the importance of evolution in biology - it is only relevant to biology researchers who are definitely a small percentage of the total population - and I assume they learn what they need.

241. Amichai, this is not a place to make an advertisement for sects.

242. Friends,
     Also in another thread, xianghua preaches the acceptance of intelligent planning and not only that, he thinks that there is 30% that the Earth is only between a few thousand years and 3 times where he admitted that the planner is God and in the same breath, he refuses to admit that God is not a scientific theory but also there , don't worry, all his claims have been completely refuted.
     You are welcome to read (to understand the level of the arguments):
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/?#comment-372546

     Intelligent design is an invention of the Discovery Institute, whose entire purpose is to promote a Christian agenda. The institute tried to infiltrate the education system. Since the Institute knows the law, and especially the First Amendment to the American Constitution, it is forbidden to say God explicitly and therefore the Institute invented the concept of the planner. The institute was thrown out of all steps by a federal court and failed in its plan. You are invited to read about the Discovery Institute's strategy here:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

     Regarding the Israeli education system, I am really discouraged and since the number of students in the state education has been reduced in the last decade and on the other hand, the number of students in the state-religious, ultra-Orthodox and Arab education has increased by tens of percent in the same period of time, the situation will only deteriorate.

243. Amichai
     Don't waste our time. If you don't have something smart to say then go say it somewhere else.

244. Oh and one more thing. We are in a very smart computer program and every positive thought receives positive feedback and every negative thought receives negative feedback. And everything is recorded there. So please start thinking positively. It is for the benefit of all of us

245. To "Good Morning Amichai" please use the same nickname all the time, the box for the nickname is not the place for the title, there is no title, just insert it into the text.

246. It's time to wake up from the world of fairy tales and fantasies.

     no God.

247. There is God and there is evolution and we are human beings genetically modified by beings like us whose evolution and technology is billions of years old. Good morning everyone it's time to wake up

248. I came across it and liked it: studying biology without evolution is like studying geology without learning about the movement of the earth's tectonic plates (which explain, among other things, the shape of the continents, the formation of mountains, seas, earthquakes, volcanoes and many other things)

249. A short and to the point article, unfortunately it seems that even in institutions of higher education the situation is not really encouraging:

     http://www.tapuz.co.il/Forums2008/ViewMsg.aspx?ForumId=834&MessageId=165417923

250. I don't understand what happened that suddenly people are so frightened by the fact that evolution is not taught for matriculation in biology...
     Don't get me wrong, I think it is very important to teach evolution in schools, but my argument is that it is not at all relevant whether it is taught to matriculation in biology or not.
     After all, what percentage of students in Israel take biology for matriculation? I would be surprised if the number is more than 5% (and that is an exaggeration).
     What about everyone else? Don't they deserve to know what evolution is?
     In my opinion, just as the Bible is taught from the second grade, evolution should be included in the science lessons of the last years of the elementary school (or division), so that 100% of the students in the state schools (and even the state-religious ones) will learn it, at least at the level some basic
     So it is true that it is important to teach evolution even for matriculation in biology and that biology is perhaps "baseless" without the context of evolution, but even if everyone who studies biology for matriculation learns about evolution, still an absolute majority of students in Israel will never hear the word evolution in school...

251. Eyal. A
     Say - what should be taught at the same time as the theory of gravity?

252. xianghua,

     1. In the science subject, science is taught. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. The one that will be taught in the Bible subject, after all, that's where it comes from, isn't it?

     2. According to your logic, when teaching about the Holocaust, arguments of Holocaust deniers should be taught at the same time.

     Conclusion - go join Ahmadinejad.

253. point
     You are talking nonsense. Nobody mentioned the administration here.

     xianghua
     Apart from a nice nickname - there is not a single word of taste in your words. Intelligent design is a stupid theory without any evidence base and without any theoretical base. It explains nothing, predicts nothing and cannot be refuted.

     Gabi Avital resigned from his position as the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education because he is not fit to teach children in kindergarten. He probably knows aeronautics, but beyond that he's not exactly a smart guy.

     There is a close connection between evolution and medicine. You know what - I suggest you use penicillin from 50 years ago. Let's see how long you survive. You will win a Darwin Award for this!!!

     Evolution does not have a "competing theory". It is not a theory. It is necessarily true. If there is a correct commenter here (that developed in evolution) I would be happy to expand.

     The truth is you are right. I know several people who did not develop from the monkey - they actually constitute a retreat....

254. Agree with every word!

255. And what would happen if they taught intelligent planning in schools? I'm sure everyone would be laughing. At the time, they stopped studies at the academy only because Doc Gabi Avital dared to claim that both sides should be taught. And on the other hand, when he was allegedly fired on the basis of this statement (which is eminently scientific), nobody cared. So who here really supports science?

     There is no connection between medical practice and the theory of evolution any more than the theory of intelligent design and even creationism.

     "And beyond that, we believe that they deserve and must know the truth about the world around them" - agrees with every word. Is anyone willing that every explanation of evolution be given to the student about the explanation of the competing theory?

     By the way, those who think that intelligent planning does not meet the definition of a scientific theory, are invited to review the long discussion as an exile in the article: "Evolution Studies in the Holy Land".

256. It has nothing to do with religion or feelings.
     The government is afraid that the public will start thinking about things as they are.
     Wars, control, passions, competition, power.

     And that's why they don't teach the subject of evolution. And the same for psychology.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.