The missing link that Darwin was waiting for has finally been found, says the discovery made by international researchers. Broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough
Scientists today announced the discovery of a 47 million year old ancestor. The fossil, which was discovered in Germany and affectionately called 'Ida' (and therefore also earned the appropriate scientific name for its status as the missing link Darwinius masillae), is twenty times older than other fossils that describe human evolution. This is a fossil that represents an intermediate stage in the transition from the prosimians - the primitive and non-human evolutionary line, which contains creatures such as lemurs - and the human, anthropoid evolutionary line, which contains the monkeys, apes and humans. Ida is actually at the root of anthropoid evolution - at the time when the primates began to evolve in our direction.
During the last two years, an international team of scientists, headed by the famous Norwegian paleontologist, Dr. Joren Horum, secretly studied an extraordinary fossil, in order to better understand the humble beginnings of the human race. Now that the research is almost over, the fossil named 'Ida' will forever change the way we thought about human evolution.
"This is the first link to all human beings...truly a fossil that connects the world heritage." says Dr. Yoren Horum.
Ida lived 47 million years ago, in the Eocene era. This was a critical period for the development of today's mammals, because at the same time the basic patterns for modern mammals were established. The extinction of the dinosaurs was a catastrophic event - especially for the dinosaurs - but it left the land empty of its deposed rulers. The early mammals - horses, bats, whales and others, including the first primates - thrived on our planet. The land began to take the shape we know today - the Himalayas rose from the land, and the vegetation and the animal population evolved at a rapid pace. The land animals, including the primates, lived in vast jungles. Ida was one of those primates.
Despite her anatomical resemblance to a lemur, Ida lacks two features present in lemurs: a long claw on the second toe, used for grooming, and a fused row of teeth in the center of her lower jaw. Like monkeys, she had claws, and her teeth were also similar to those of a monkey. Her eyes are similar to ours - they are located at the front of the head, and give her three-dimensional vision and the ability to judge distances.
Like all primates, Ida also has five fingers on each hand. In addition, Ida's hands were endowed with a human-looking thumb, which allowed her to grip objects firmly and accurately. For Ida, the thumb allowed her to climb trees and gather fruit. For us, the same thumb allows us to make tools, write and hold spears. Ida's two flexible hands would have allowed her to use both hands for any task that could not be done with just one hand - like holding a large fruit. Like us, Ida also had relatively short arms and legs. But the evidence linking Ida to humans is found in the heel of the foot, in Ida's talus bone, which is identical in shape to the one present in humans today. The only difference is that the human talus bone is larger.
We know Ida was female because the fossil lacks a penis bone. Although we do not know her exact age, an X-ray, CT scan and CT scan reveal that Ida was about nine months old when she died. The same scans also testify to the menu she had - mainly plants and berries.
The X-ray tests show the presumed cause of Ida's death: her left wrist was in the recovery stages after a problematic fracture. The researchers believe that she tried to drink from the water of Mussel Lake in Germany, and suffocated from the carbon dioxide mantle that covered the surface of the lake, as a result of the activity of the volcanic forces in the area. Ida's broken hand could not help her, and Ida slipped into the lake and unconsciousness. Her body sank to the bottom of the lake, where it was preserved thanks to the special preservation conditions, which left the skeleton almost completely intact, for 47 million years until today.
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with all other mammals," says Sir David Attenborough, radio broadcaster, documentary star and famous British naturalist, excitedly. "The link that until now was said to be missing... is no longer missing."
167 תגובות
The article and the responses to it remind themselves of a mechanism for debugging - mutations (it's a foreign word and I want to put mutation in it). The mutations that are not so visible to the followers of science are injected here by the agents of religion. The mutations that are injected by the followers of science and the other mutations create a tail for the future from the base - the article, they take a ride on the article.
Like from fragments that stick to the article but are inevitably arranged in a long column by technology - this web page. Each of the shards wants to be closer to the article, some to stab it and some to add outer padding to it and thicken it. A bit like the competition of sperm towards the egg. who will win?!
Ok now some scientific facts, you were all once part of your father's seed, in order for you to be born to most if not all of you your parents had to have sex, and most if not all of you came out of your mother's genitalia, now it is much worse than thousands of years ago Did you have a common ancestor with the monkeys?
And regarding the religious coercion, do they sell bread on Passover? Do you stop traffic on the roads on Yom Kippur? Do you turn off the TV? You live in a democratic country, and it works like other democratic countries, and the majority do not want to live in an ultra-orthodox country, and yes, it is first democratic and then Jewish, Israel is a home for the Jewish nation as well as for the Jewish religion, and if you have a problem with that, you are welcome to go
Avi:
In the status quo there is a lot of religious coercion
There is no religious coercion, in fact the one who started breaking the rules is you from the secular side, you have a cinema and open shops in the center of Jerusalem, which was unthinkable 30 years ago, the very point of the constitution is to break the status quo and in general all the attacks on the agreements came from your side and this Fact. Respect the other groups that live with you or be ready for a fight, keep your malice to yourself. This is a Jewish country before it is democratic and that is how it was established on the day of its foundation, for those who try to use lame excuses such as peace to step on the democratic majority in the country will at best lead to our personal destruction and at worst to the destruction of the country, the toxicity of Gentiles like Amadeus is only harmful, why won't I get political autonomy in the country where I live Amadeus, which is clearly a distinctly Christian country.
the weakest link?! Isn't that supposed to be the missing link???
Anonymous:
Beyond the fact that I don't think there was a single thing wrong with Amadeus' words - one thing should be remembered.
None of the opponents of religion are ruining your reading experience on the site and this is for the simple reason that it is a scientific site and as a principle there is no reason for religious issues to appear on it.
What else?
It is precisely your religious friends - who for the most part - as a result of their religiosity - are also opponents of science - who start discussions that tire you of reading.
It is somewhat reminiscent of the saying "he who lives in a glass house - should not throw stones" but for the purpose of the present matter I would refine a little more and say that he who is stuck in a narrow and deep pit - it is better not to throw rocks upwards.
I must also add that the religious coercion that permeates all aspects of our lives (including its attempts to confuse the mind on this website) tires me much more than reading the "Hidan" website.
(See response 161 for more).
This is my answer to your question: "I have no idea what you want from Amadeus": simply, I want Halez to stop destroying me and other believers (who also believe in Muhammad for my part), the pleasure of reading scientific articles and at least maintain the boundaries of discussion, in his words he proves that he has long slipped into hostility and slander Even in cooperation with enemies from the other side, he will claim what he will claim, but his words border on hatred that has nothing to do with faith and science, but low politics.
To Roy Tsezana, please delete comment 153, it duplicates my words to comment 152.
These are actually the beginning of my words that didn't go through the first time, for the sake of order go back to comment 146, they are a reply as part of what was said above. Sorry Michael, my name is Arnon, but since some of my words were blocked, I shortened them and to be safe I removed my name, I'm sure you are smart enough to know that I the guy.
Continue, in general his words are vague "they will be dealt with in accordance with the law", which law? The "Law of Amadeus"? Really afraid to imagine a country that Amadeus leads :-S, he also claims that others are fascists, "on the thief's head".
In his ignorance, the guy terrorizes people who are not familiar with the intricacies of science and it is said about him: "Come to correct
and found spoiling".
anonymous:
Don't mince words.
You sent Amadeus abroad only because he does not want to be forced not to eat chametz on Pesach or to travel on Shabbat.
Then you will justify it by saying that in Rome one should behave like the Romans.
Beyond the fact that the phrase "in Rome he behaved like a Roman" is just an expression and in many cases it has no justification ("in Sodom he behaved like a Sodomite", for example, or "in Disneyland he behaved like a Doss") it shows that in your opinion "Israelism" is expressed in the observance of religious customs - which is simply nonsense .
Then you shamelessly rewrite history and the present as well.
Once - after someone accused Shimon Peres of "lacking roots" I wrote on the back cover of the city newspaper a response along the following lines: "He whose roots disrupt his judgment is - mentally - a plant".
That's what I think even today.
The State of Israel was established for one and only reason (anti-Semitism in general and the Holocaust in particular) and for one and only purpose (to serve as a refuge for the Jewish people from persecution by the fanatics of other religions).
The vote in the United Nations was not motivated by religious considerations at all.
It's true - the (stupid) insistence specifically on this region of land was due to religious considerations and it is indeed the source of many of our troubles, but, as mentioned, what Herzl envisioned was the state of the Jews, and only a confusion of language or a confusion of thought caused people to write in the declaration of independence "Jewish state".
My right to live here right now is not an ancestral right.
As the song says, "Here I was born, here my children were born, here I built my house (and the house of the parasites) with my two hands."
Historical considerations as a justification for owning the country are simply idiotic because anyone can choose to "start" history whenever they want.
That is why both the Jews and the Arabs use them.
The only reason why the Hivi, the Frisians, and the Jebusites do not also claim ownership of the land is that the Israelites committed the first recorded genocide against them.
For your reference: "The seculars established the state, serve in the army and provide for the ultra-Orthodox and you find it appropriate to decide that the state belongs to the ultra-orthed." Where did I claim it? How paternalistic! The seculars founded the country but they are not the only ones who built it, most of the "black" workers of the country were religious people and they built it with love, while most of you managed it and towered over the "other". Don't brag, your argument is arrogant in addition to its pettiness. You didn't understand my idea, so I'll make it clear again, if you don't feel connected by your roots to the Jewish people, you're no different from any invading colonialist from Europe, period. But of course you are not like that, you simply ignore the historical tradition (which is not related to religion, history is history), heritage, customs, not religious belief! One last thing, I do not interfere with folklore in the secular areas, you are exposed to everything that your culture represents, but a big one, you have to accept The rights of the minority to their own freedom of worship, however "backward" you think it is, in the areas where we live. In a region where the majority is secular, do what you want and if you start crying about the fact that resources are being allocated for our folklore or that part of our basic connecting thread is being forced on you, do yourself a favor you live in a country where the three great monotheistic religions were created, to disregard this history is to act as a foreigner in your own country, if you wish Behaving like Europeans, you will live in Europe and hear Bach and Chopin concerts, then you will go to a restaurant that will serve you pork in tartar sauce, it's really not interesting, but not in a country whose establishment was different from the beginning, a country whose territory lies in the Middle East, if you haven't noticed, the era of colonialism is over, the era of enlightenment and patience has come.
Continued: For your reference: "The seculars established the state, serve in the army and provide for the ultra-Orthodox and you find it appropriate to decide that the state belongs to the ultra-Orthodox in general." Where did I claim it? How paternalistic! The seculars founded the country but they are not the only ones who built it, most of the "black" workers of the country were religious people and they built it with love, while most of you managed it and towered over the "other". Don't brag, your argument is arrogant in addition to its pettiness. You didn't understand my idea, so I'll clarify it again, if you don't feel connected by your roots to the Jewish people, you're no different from any invading colonialist from Europe, period. But of course you are not like that, you simply ignore the historical tradition (which is not related to religion, history is history), heritage, customs, not religious belief! One last thing, I do not interfere with folklore in the secular areas, you are exposed to everything that your culture represents, but a big one, you have to accept The rights of the minority to their own freedom of worship, however "backward" you think it is, in the areas where we live. In a region where the majority is secular, do what you want and if you start crying about the fact that resources are being allocated for our folklore or that part of our basic connecting thread is being forced on you, do yourself a favor you live in a country where the three great monotheistic religions were created, to disregard this history is to act as a foreigner in your own country, if you wish Behaving like Europeans, you will live in Europe and hear Bach and Chopin concerts, then you will go to a restaurant that will serve you pork in tartar sauce, it's really not interesting, but not in a country whose establishment was different from the beginning, a country whose territory lies in the Middle East, if you haven't noticed, the era of colonialism is over, the era of enlightenment and patience has come.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html
anonymous:
Enough with the examples of Nazism.
I already explained to you that it is a religion.
It was not based on evolution but on lies.
Just like all other religions.
The only way to get people to know how to distinguish when they are being told idioms is to get them to understand that critical thinking and not faith is the right way to determine the basic assumptions.
anonymous:
I don't see much connection between your current response and the previous one, but anyway, I will answer the current one.
81: You're just giving a grade that doesn't belong to the matter.
Do you disagree with his statement that it is better to be a European citizen with equal rights than to die?
In my opinion, this statement is correct to the point of tautology and calling it names is simply demagoguery based on hatred.
89: This is neither pathological hatred nor hatred at all. This is a description of the situation.
Humans want to advance and the jealous and cowardly God is afraid that they will be like him and therefore punishes them for not doing injustice and sends a message to everyone: "Beware! If you try to advance I will punish you!"
It's really a disgusting story with a decadent message. Beyond this terrible message, there is one wise diagnosis in the story (which I pointed out when I raised the issue in the previous response to Amadeus's) and that is the diagnosis that multiple languages create quarrels. This is a correct diagnosis which is a special case of the diagnosis that "many artificial differences between people create quarrels". Of course, religions are also artificial differences.
98: He does not deprive the Jewish people of anything. He only points out the facts so that you understand that there is no reason to attribute original or true claims to the Torah.
108: a. Your claim is simply not true.
Greek culture was much more advanced than Judaism and in fact all cultures until the end of the Middle Ages.
There are all kinds of wrong recitations planted in people's minds during religious brainwashing and this is one of them.
B. Why do you make up the claims you think he would make when you have the claims he really made? Didn't the prophet Elijah slaughter the prophets of Baal? Didn't the Jews massacre the inhabitants of Canaan during their takeover of the land? Doesn't the Book of Esther tell about a massacre of Jews in Persia?
If you just decide to spread lies to him - why talk about Jesus? Why not attribute to him the claim that Jews murdered Rabin? Just because it's true?
And also: all these actions happened because of religion - whether because of a direct instruction from God, whether because of an indirect instruction from God through the Torah or through prophets (or rabbis), or because of the very artificial differences that religion creates between people.
third. All the cases I mentioned in part B were cases you ignored. Amadeus may have meant in his words that your ignoring this is due to the fact that you do not attach importance to them. I think he was right.
d. You answered in your previous answer and I also answered your previous answer in my previous answer. You have no right to determine for him (and for me) how we should behave. The patronage with which you allow yourself to define the behavior expected of Israelis as religious behavior - as if this country belongs to the ultra-Orthodox - and this despite the fact that they did not establish it and throughout its history they only suckle from the udders of the Messiah's donkey - is intolerable.
God. I completely agree with Amadeus' statement.
A quick look at Rabbi Ovadiya Baba Sali and his successors and the like shows how justified the proverb of the shamans is.
And really - the results of their involvement in politics and legislation are horrifying and I have already mentioned many examples of this.
Remind you again of rape in the Torah mitzvot?
* After the Holocaust, rabbis intensified their opposition to it and not only that, but also Christians, mainly from the evangelical stream,
The no less important reason is not scientific but moral, the way it is presented to laymen and not to people
Educated people like Michael (even Amadeus, although there are echoes of darkness in him) are thought provoking
A dangerous collective (even a certain public of "believers", everywhere you will find wicked or ignorant), people
who interpret it in the most complete simplicity that exists, exploit it to their advantage to this day (see the value of European hate organizations), of course the theory of evolution does not claim that human origin X is higher than origin Y, at all it is possible for its method to assume a sequence of cycles/circularity in the development processes of the organisms' genomes, (also regression ), in every population group because of the complexity and the enormous puzzle of the human genome.
Modern science additionally denies the definition of human races as a separate biological species (the ability to culture is common to one species) and assumes the origin of man from one source (modern science is similar in this idea only to the story
The Bible and this is also important from a social point of view, but what to do, history shows that this theory is very complex and presenting it to laymen in an exciting and simplistic way has already brought tragedy to all of Europe and beyond (Japan, Southeast Asia
and the islands of the Pacific Ocean) between the damn years of 39-45, nowadays we are more careful about this and that is good, but
We still need to improve the way it is presented, not as a competitor to faith and of course not to mix it with the way it is
Human morality and spirit evolved.
Michael, it is troublesome for me to present the entire dialogue between me and Ben Amadeus, I will give you the guy's "pearls" along with numbers at your request:
81- "In a certain sense, perhaps it would be better to give up Judaism and Hebrew, and become an equal secular European citizen
rights". *Self-hatred of Israelis involved in the Jewish people is cultural (not a matter of ethnicity
God forbid, there is of course a difference). Interesting, reminds me of the Weimar Republic and the hateful Jew
The unfortunate Otto Weininger committed suicide at the age of 23.
89- "The story of the Tower of Babel is an abominable act, which indicates the pathological hatred of the person who composed it,
And it illustrates the disgusting "values" believed in by the ancient Jews who wrote the Tanach and invented
Judaism. It is really repulsive to me how today people present the disgusting practicalities from the books of the Tanakh
As a model and an example of morality" - *pathological hatred, "on the thief's head".
98- "Don't avoid it, the Torah was written by Jews, and even if it is based on myths of other nations, they
They were written in accordance with the agenda of the Hebrew religion." *The Jews will "write" their own history,
did you hear that O: Halez is denying a people their right to develop their folklore, what is your business what a certain group wants to perpetuate or not, this is a minimalist human trait for the cultivation and survival of a group, in all the annals
of the nations. And that the Greek culture did not glorify and nurture itself and still does so? And rightly so. enough
to fascism and the thought police that you have hiding under the guise of progressiveness in fact
You are dark, like the last of the ultra-Orthodox whom you accuse of intolerance, most of them are tolerant of people like you.
108- a. "Truthfully, I would have preferred them to have stayed with their husbands." * God will preserve literally, even according to
Most sociologists specializing in history claim that the "transition" from belief in idols to one god is
Human development in all aspects, spiritual and scientific, world revolution and the dawn of a new era,
The basic reasoning is that there is more freedom to use rational tools, of course you can take my words
For your benefit, I know what the next step is D: My point is that it is for the modern research method.
B. "Jews murdered gentiles for being gentiles right and left, why are you lying?" *The guy starts
The officer, fine, will soon claim that the Jews murdered Jesus and not the people of the Roman Empire, in addition to many
The Jews who were crucified with him from the place of his crucifixion to the place of his birth in Bethlehem.
C. That your moral development is at a very poor level, since you are unable to see why this is
It is not okay to murder people for believing in the "wrong" religion." *By the way, I didn't claim anything
Such again, you are the proof that hatred for a certain group causes the object to see and analyze everything related
To her in a negative sense, therefore the argument with you is fruitless, but you still need to prove yourself that it is said: "Even you."
He dulled his teeth."
D. "The ultra-Orthodox see fit to prevent me from buying bread on Passover or traveling by bus on Shabbat" (I answered that
in my previous answer).
E. A quick look at the Halacha laws and the Sanhedrin, makes it very clear why it is critical to separate religion from the state
in Israel, and to keep these sorcerers and shamans out of politics as much as possible." *Wizards,
Shamans? It is interesting to mention the last word that implies prejudices against people of origin
African (a British sociological study that I looked at), that is, the landing of the object (it doesn't matter this time
in a Jew) to the rank of an African (as an excuse found in arrogant people) in his eyes is justified, because in fact
For him, we are primitive and the Africans, maybe you will relegate them to the level of monkeys? (Where does my confidence come from?
Don't come to that), here is the superficial side of evolution that is not clear enough that has become alarming and even
Dangerous, in theory as it is pronounced lovely things and in general the science in which is fascinating and amazing (as a theory), but
It needs an improvement in its actual presentation to laymen, (a significant improvement has been made in the years of the last decades
I have to admit.
anonymous:
Regardless of the rest of your words - the appropriation you are making of a country that is mainly held by the seculars is simply sickening.
The seculars established the state, serve in the army and provide for the ultra-Orthodox and you find it appropriate to decide that the state belongs to the ultra-Orthodox in general.
Go and establish your own country!
anonymous:
"Did I claim that the murder was committed because of religion?"
I don't know what you claimed because I don't know who you are.
I read some of your words in the last response and I see that they are all wrong, but to answer you seriously I need at least the numbers of the responses you refer to.
In any case - since it is assumed that Amadeus didn't know who you were either - there is no logic in dismissing his words as a wrong reference to your words since his words were probably written without connection to you.
"I have no idea what you want from Amadeus": a selection of half-truth quotes and demagogic exaggerations from Amadeus:
First quote - "murdering people for believing in the "wrong" religion." Did I claim that the murder was committed because of religion? If you didn't pay attention to the words "political-religious struggle" what kind of murder? The prophets of Baal and their people fought Judaism and its people, the believing Jews were the underdogs in this period and gave them back an epic portion, as it should be. Perhaps it is convenient for you that Jews sit quietly and at most in the easiest way assimilate and disappear from their surroundings and in the severe form are torn to pieces to the point of extinction.
Second quote - "Do you justify the destruction of the ancient peoples and cultures of South America", simply paranoia, how did you come to such a crazy conclusion? Did they do something against my people? Moreover, do you even know why they don't say Hallel on the seventh of Passover? This is Halacha! Sages say that the reason for this is a calamity that happened on this day: that is, it was the day that the enslaving Egyptians came to drown the people of Israel, that's why God said: "My sons are drowning in the sea and you sing poetry?" Although the seventh day of Passover is the completion of Israel's redemption, and therefore is considered a 'Sabbath', it is not the final purpose of creation. The purpose for which the world was created is not the loss of the wicked but the correction of the earth.
Third quote - "I don't think Judaism has a problem with human sacrifices, Abraham was commanded to do so, and the consideration of his daughter's sacrifice to God will open up a normative act." Abraham replaced his son in rejecting any type of human sacrifice among the people of Israel, because this custom was common among other peoples, such as Molech and Baal rituals, it is clear that you did not understand the idea of this story, and to take the negative side, it is convenient for a dark and hateful way of thinking like yours , I wonder if they would tempt you in vain and then abuse your body in strange ways and throw you off a cliff into the sea to the idol of Dagon, or burn you for the sake of the king, which would you prefer? Well, probably childhood trauma or racism that was born from your mother's womb, (or both) made you think that your hatred of Judaism is mainly harmful to you.
In relation to Yeftah, the biblical story is a tragedy, a moral lesson and above all a warning to people not to make a vow casually, otherwise the price they will pay will be unbearably high, Yeftah's home was the most precious thing in his heart and is the metaphor for such a difficult price. I can philosophize on the subject until tomorrow, but this matter is complex and extremely long due to its very philosophical essence and the canvas is short.
Fourth quote - "Jews murdered gentiles for being gentiles right and left, why are you lying?". Another accusation that borders on pathological hatred.
The people of Israel did not kill any gentile because he was a gentile, (even during the exodus from Egypt *3400 years ago, not 2000 years ago) but still, it is convenient for you to deviate from the quote I gave, after the exile in Babylon you will find me one such event, if you are lying to yourself and even if before 3300 after Joshua entered the Land of Israel and attacked the other tribes, so what?
Historically and archeologically, tribes attacked each other in order to gain their own fertile territories at that time because of the desert that crossed the straits and the Mezzet area ("Land of Milk and Honey"), Israel is no different, even according to your opinion. What is your concern about Jewish history anyway? Why am I interested in your ancestors... the Anglo-Saxons (Germanic tribes that destroyed Rome), the Muslims (conquered the region of Heber and built a country from the Jews and slaughtered them mercilessly and this is just the beginning towards the fading Persian Empire). You know what, leave the Muslims if you are Christians oO, the Spanish, the massacre of the native peoples you mentioned that reached tens of millions and the brutal extermination of the British Empire against an innocent population of 100 million Indians by selling infected blankets, Australia-indigenous, western-total rape of a continent Africa, if you are a communist >___>, Stalin extermination of more than 20 million people because of one man's paranoia and the page is too short for historical examples in abundance from the enlightened West and not only, I wonder why I have the feeling that I am getting closer to your personal belief, F.R.N. You red schizoid, you are trying to be more righteous than the Pope, who is your name to judge me and my people?
Fifth quote - "But for some reason the ultra-Orthodox see fit to prevent me from buying bread on Passover or traveling on the bus on Shabbat"...I will summarize my words for you to absorb in your own language: "In Rome, act like a Roman", you have the whole world and its wife to do what you want, not you in your brazenness Decide for the Jewish people how and what to behave, enough of your demagoguery and crazy megalomania, buy your bread before Passover and use the car and more importantly, on my part, with your sole permission, tie your legs and offer them to your husband, I am not interested as a Jew what a gentile does with sole permission, in his home, also in Israel But in the public domain of the nation state of Israel, you have no right to such and other grievances against the Jewish people. Will I consider immigrating to Russia and trying to confiscate all the fir trees and confiscate Santa Claus figures? Who is your name to interfere in any worship of any country in the world, if religious people are harassing you so much in their settlements, move to a secular area and believe me in the secular areas they will make sure that no religious person tries to establish a synagogue, lest they hear the "annoying" prayer voices, "what come around" go around”; They did death to religious people from the establishment of the state, we for our part do not take revenge and maintain what is called in our regions freedom of worship, if it is so bad for you and you are not able to do the minimum for basic tolerance and solidarity (buy bread before Passover or from Abulafia during Passover), you are welcome to take yourself and your hating soul to the place Another on the globe and all the best to have you there, prosper and succeed in the name of the Jewish people, of course without us. In short, calm the burning hatred or leave us alone.
Arnon:
I'll start by saying that I have no idea what you want from Amadeus.
In my opinion, his description of reality is faithful to the original.
There is no arguing in his words and no distortion of reality resulting from brainwashing - two phenomena that in Ha Ha Ha's words are simply everything.
Ha ha ha is not a bad apple in a box of good apples.
He is an apple that belongs to exactly the same type as Rabbi Ovadia, Benizri and many others.
These days it is especially easy to find examples of rabbis calling on IDF soldiers to refuse an order.
This is a call whose danger goes far beyond the narrow context of evacuating outposts or any other action imposed on the army. It's actually just a clear expression of the entire religious establishment's hostility to democracy.
Another expression is, of course, the anthem of the youth of the hills - "Utzo Asheh and Tofar".
I already told you that in the State of Israel in 1966 the court ordered the brother of a deceased person who left no children to rape his deaf widow.
Don't you understand what's going on here?
The sentence "A man will live by his faith" is a sentence accepted only by secular people! The religious, for some reason, think they have the right to force restaurant owners not to serve chametz on Passover, not to recognize each other's kosher considerations or weddings, to oppose the pursuit of science, to send others to the army to protect them and to work to provide for them, and we have only begun to scratch the surface.
I know that not everyone is sick with all the diseases I described and that maybe not even the majority believe in Benizri's retarded claim that lying down causes earthquakes but still there are enough such people to promote him to the leadership of a religious party.
In my opinion, belief in God is complete nonsense and I have often given the reasons why this is my opinion, but despite this I would not argue with someone who wants to believe in nonsense if he did not use this nonsense as a justification for harming me and unfortunately this type of harm is abundant and non-stop.
Religious belief is the petri dish on which the religious establishment grows with all the sick coercion that characterizes it.
That's why I really don't care if there are religious people like you here and there who don't try to destroy my life.
The influential part of the religious community does work to destroy my life and you - at best - are their fig leaf.
The situation is similar in Islam.
What - lack of sane Muslims?
I'm sure not - but the ones who set the tone are the crazy ones and it's not at all surprising because in the end the others are afraid of them.
An interesting sentence: "The moment a person is trained to believe in something and to avoid critical thinking about it - he stops being a whole person and becomes a part (sometimes the whole - depending on the degree of training) into a zombie that serves the religion".
Not only religion, there are other forms of social sickness and intellectuals always need the religious or social framework to feel they belong, for example fascist or backward communist regimes, see the idiotic Hugo Chávez entry on which there is no need to elaborate.
Judaism in its origin asserts a basic claim, (in the Mishnah, Tract Sanhedrin, 2, XNUMX), "Whosoever sustains one soul, the scripture raises upon him as if a whole world exists", indeed one can see in each and every person a whole world, created in the image, individual and not part of a herd, like the parable About the tilapia fish that tries with all its might to climb against the forces of the river, a dead fish will of course move with the current, with this idea I agree with you. But you're missing a very important point, not all people were born with a framework that teaches them to think independently and more importantly, try to use your emotional thinking a little (emotional intelligence in the Bible), there are many schools of thought in Judaism and I did not claim that my public is perfect, it is far from that, but we all need Live in peace because we live together! You must accept the situation in a rational way and not show hostility that has already passed the stage of condescension due to feelings that originate from fear and hatred. Every people/group has the bourgeois center that takes out of us all sorts of unwanted growths that have sprouted from the juice of one or another garbage, do you think the Germans banished their murderous schizoid-paranoid brother? Absolutely not, it still exists and you see it emerging with attacks on German citizens of Turkish origin who built Germany after WWII. I will not abandon the people who socially are part of my living fabric, the answer is education.
The other methods create more harm than good, especially against such people, the analogy is similar to an electronic device that has broken down, you will try to beat it until it works properly, maybe temporarily it will work but you have caused long-term damage, you do not fix complex problems with dark devices and someone with a brain like yours should know this. DAG ha,ha,ha is more of a "harmful troll" than a guy who tries to talk about the essence of the matter, on the other hand, Amadeus speaks fundamentally about the matter, of course from his despicable point of view that tends to severe racism and double evil than anything ha,ha,ha and this from a Jewish sage or a psychologist A beginner can analyze along the lines of his annoying and aggressive personality towards anything interesting Jewish whose comments about Judaism can easily be dressed up any religion even more strongly, if we look at the annals of the ancient nations and empires, up to modern times.
Michael, on a personal note, you didn't stop and you didn't even try to remind him casually that you should moderate his harsh words, your right, but there are many religious readers who were hurt by the imbalance, instead of being helpful, you turned out to be harmful and most importantly, you alienate religious people who are attracted to the fields of physics, chemistry, mathematics and their wonderful derivatives. There are also many religious/Orthodox for whom this is an interesting and attractive field as strange as it sounds, why do you think types like ha,ha,ha enter here if not for the intellectual excitement of the innovations presented and the desire for polemic, even though their way is wrong in my opinion and these are fruitless and unnecessary debates, they They run out quickly, like the (essentially bad) thrill of fighting, young people looking to attack the older (smarter) in the group.
One last comment, "Tul Cora is between your eyes" before you try to teach the other to throw up a member of his group and define him as a leper. In Judaism this is not a simple process, including Amadeus no matter if he is a gentile, he also lives among us.
Arnon:
For some reason you think you can define anything as you wish while ignoring what it really is.
You try to defend religion while ignoring that creatures like ha ha ha are its products.
For me, it is simply a fortunate case that we have a commenter like him because otherwise - even though I knew that religion creates such phenomena - I would not have been able to demonstrate the fact to you.
Instead of understanding that this is one of the results of religion - you preach morality to it.
come on!
Will Laden preach morality too?
And the chastity guards? Great that you despise them! Does that cancel them?
Try to convince them that your interpretation of nonsense is the correct one?
I repeat - as soon as a person is trained to believe in something and avoid critical thinking about it - he ceases to be a whole person and becomes partially (sometimes completely - depending on the degree of training) a zombie who serves the religion instead of himself and those around him.
I hope you don't censor me, evolution or not, the matter has already slipped into incorrect and inflated insults and slanders, these are my right to answer, since evolution does not contradict the existence of a higher power or some higher metaphysical entity, therefore I did not deny or agree with the theory in question, because the dispute is deeper Therefore, it depends on the environment and education that the person received and of course on the measure and form of his spirituality.
Yosef:
Since you asked a serious question I will answer you seriously.
1. The things you described are the result of the laws of nature in which coincidences also play a part.
2. There is no creator of the world.
If you have any additional questions (not the same question again in a different guise) you are welcome to ask.
Dawn,
If the whole theory of evolution was based on one or two findings, it would be fine. But the theory is backed by tens of thousands of proofs from all different fields of science. Judaism? It is backed up by a book.
Yosef,
I am happy to say that evolution also explains the existing order in the body. On the other hand, the existence of a creator does not explain the mess in the body - like for example the tendon that exists in our leg, but has degenerated and does not work anymore. In chimpanzees, on the other hand, it is used to move all the toes at the same time. The existence of a creator also does not explain why we are so exposed to diseases in which the 'organized' immune system that exists in the body, attacks the body itself. I would expect an intelligent creator to be aware that this might happen and fix the matter.
------
my new blog - Another science
Those whose grandfather is a monkey will enjoy it
Is it possible that the order that exists in the world will start from the cell of the body and the immune system and the digestive system, the action of the heart and the eye and the emotion and the thought and the reaction and the mating and and and and is it the result of coincidences
Or there is a Creator
In a thousand years scientists will find among the ruins of an abandoned museum a display of a pig with 2 heads and will develop complete theories about a new breed of two-headed pigs that lives on Earth and is a complementary link to a theory full of holes of their time because even in a thousand years people will be looking for the answer that is always there in front of their faces.
Is there still a sane person in the world who believes in Darwin's nonsense
And again, ha, ha, ha, from all the text one clear conclusion: a website of the Council of Dream Sages!!!!
Itamar First of all it is not clear to me what proof obligation applies to me. I asked a question because I don't know the answer to it, not because I was trying to prove something.
But your answer is somewhat problematic. Evolution does not require the existence of a plasmid but rather the existence of mutations that accumulate over the years and eventually lead to the creation of new species, some of which are more complex than the original genome.
When we check the confirmation of this theory from a scientific point of view, we see that it is quite easy to create subspecies by playing with genetics (poodle from wolf, new varieties of flies and bees, etc.). What we have not been able to create for now (or document) are new species. In the hundred and fifty years since Darwin we have not witnessed the creation of a single new species. When this claim is presented to the supporters of evolution, they make two main arguments:
1. 150 years is not enough time, if we wait 100,000 we will surely be found
2. Among bacteria, the genetic diversity is enormous. Since bacteria reproduce at a faster rate, it can be concluded that in the future we will also find evidence among more complex life forms
Regarding the first argument, there is no problem with it except for the fact that it makes parts of the theory of evolution untestable scientifically, at least in our time. The second argument is stronger, but the fact that the mechanism of gene replication in bacteria is different from other creatures raises (in my opinion) the question of whether it is possible to achieve the same genetic diversity without a plasmid.
In short, the confirmations for the theory of evolution as of today (as far as I know) are
• Complex organisms - long lifespan (relatively) without plasmid - limited genetic diversity
• Bacteria - short life span with a plasmid - great genetic diversity
You prefer to look at longevity as a linguistic explanation between germs and complex creatures, but why shouldn't the explanation be in the plasmid?
I will ask in a different way - is there evidence of the creation of a new species in a creature that does not have a plasmid?
Thanks.
To Hogin the "deserted island":
You're just trying to complain because if you were really interested you would go to the source (link at the end of the article) and read there that Ida was 3 feet tall (about 91 cm)
The article does not specify the size of this fossil, and on its face it is also possible to conclude that it is a sammite (tiny lizard) or some kind of draconic mother/father, and not exactly a monkey or anything in between :)
It was found in Germany and it also went with volcanic 'gases', 'Wot Eber',,, wow.
Why should I accept everything that is written here as see and sanctify? Difficult questions.
Forgive me, Arya Seter, for my terrible ignorance:)/:(.
Since the theory of evolution does not require the presence of a plasmid, but of any imperfect copying mechanism of hereditary material, you are the one on whom the burden of proof rests.
Why would the presence of the plasmid (which is far from being the only type of DNA in living cells that is not part of the DNA in the chromosomes) *yes* raise any question mark? How is it that you agree that hereditary material copied between different individuals can cause evolution in some cases, but not others? Where is the significant difference?
To Roy Cezana
Since you (according to your testimony) know the subject inside out, please enlighten me:
Why does the fact that bacteria have a plasmid, while more complex organisms do not, raise a question mark as to whether the same evolutionary processes that occur in bacteria also occur in more complex organisms?
I would appreciate a detailed answer that does not start with the common sentence on the site "I have tens of thousands of proofs of this but..."
Michael: If you had become a poet, it would have been many times better for all of us.
Sleep willow, and golden dreams to you too.
Hugin:
The corner looms in front of me
She asks for silence
My dress in the closet
she wants to sleep
Michael: You dare to say about Hugin, unfair??? Check what you are?
Father, if you also delete my response to Michael for his insolence and will not allow me to express myself, I will test the clarity of your ability to judge.
In the name of: real 'Geri Tzedek', who established the foundations of this land with love, work, sweat, and orphans and had their estates confiscated by their ilk with arguments of a failed conscience !!.
someone:
As usual you didn't understand anything.
I brought the document that all the academic institutions signed just to show that the "scientific" reasons you brought are not acceptable to the scientists as a whole.
That's not why I think evolution takes place.
As I have said dozens of times - the matter has a mathematical proof and there are also thousands of proofs that I will not repeat here for the thousandth time.
All I wanted to show is that what you call "science" is not what the scientists call by that name. that's it.
You decided that this is why I believe in evolution, but perhaps it is desirable that historically I did not know about this document at all until I started arguing with idiots like you and I was looking for material that would disprove their every claim - even the ones that are really irrelevant and that in my discussion there was no point in addressing them.
Not only did you misinterpret the reason for my acceptance of the theory of evolution, but you also attributed to me saying things that I never said.
In short - you not only believe nonsense - you are also a liar.
The comparison with geologists is of course another nonsense from Beit Midrash.
I can assure you that the "scientists" who reject evolution are religious and that the reason they reject it is religious.
There is no religious reason to reject the claim of the earth's sphericity and therefore there are no scientists who reject it.
wall and mast:
This is the usual evasion method.
Jihad is also only the shell of Islam when it is convenient for those who want to defend it.
And in general - this debate refers to Gentiles, but the abuse of Jews is a commandment that comes straight from the Holy Scriptures and is carefully observed.
At all, I don't understand why you came back to harass us. It's not fair Hugin.
Arnon:
Nothing will help.
You continue to ignore the facts
By the way - ha ha ha is also a fact that you ignore.
Anyone who wants to continue standing behind the probabilistic argument against evolution is welcome to prove to us that they understand something about probability by the challenge I posed in response 113.
It's very easy to ignore it and you all specialize in ignoring it but I just wanted to highlight this expertise of yours.
Sharon:
Next time you have nothing to write, I suggest you don't write it here.
Michael, because of my appreciation for you, I will start with you: "You are welcome to continue to ignore the facts", I did not present any argument that lowers or raises the matter of the "missing link" and evolution in general, in general, to my approach this matter does not matter at all, Judaism found it right to separate the holy from the profane and spirit from matter , if we have already touched on the subject, the status of the theory of evolution is as a theory and not a theory, such as the theory of relativity, etc. There are still missing pieces and when they will be completed mathematically, archaeologically and most importantly by physical phenomena that prove the main stages of the theory, say Hillel. In the meantime, random mutations in unicellular organisms, random sequences in hereditary information that change in multicellular organisms, by copying or duplicating the hereditary information, etc. are not the full picture, in general there is a lot of so-called hereditary information that is supposedly not translated and is considered "hereditary garbage", what is the role of a backup For catastrophic emergencies? Why was it created? And if we go further what gave the spark to this process in particular and the creation of our material universe in general, is there not in your opinion some metaphysical force that pushed energy in the form of matter into our dimension?
Leha, ha.ha: If I'm already responding to your words, know that they are difficult: "One should not give to a non-Muslim or a Gentile", who are you to determine who is a non-Muslim? You see the servants of Baal and Ashtorat around you and even if you find you have no authority to do anything about it, if you don't put it in your heart there is no Sanhedrin that is, "Dina Damalkuta Dina" and even no Sanhedrin would judge in your way, there are Dini Gar Toshav (Gentile) in Israel and more From this, one must take care of the livelihood of a resident citizen, as it is said, "Dwell and reside and live with you" (Leviticus XNUMX:XNUMX) KV You must not harm him and his property, in connection with a righteous resident (convert) a righteous resident who has become a perfect Israel, the commandment is to love him ' TLXNUMX) as it is said and you loved the sojourner and so on (Aqab), you must not even try to make him miserable in the most petty way possible and economize him until he is acclimatized in the land.
There is nothing to talk about "destroying" unless it is about Amalek (Nazis and active haters and the like are not just anti-Semitic because they have the right to hate you from "Halacha knowing that they did hate Jacob").
Third thing, don't use the "Torah as a crowbar to dig into it" and satisfy your personal desires, there is nothing more serious than that, there are such and such laws and quotations that can be thrown out of context from any religious or even philosophical codex.
For Roy, the "modesty guards" are an interesting example, most of those who suffer from them are religious, secular people who live outside the walls and are not aware that large parts of us think that their actions are despicable and alienating, for me these people are a fanatical Jewish sect and not Jews. A group that was probably influenced by past traumas by an Anabaptist Christian sect from the 17th century in Germany.
I'm sure you can justify your claims, and after hearing many claims on the subject - and the biologists' answers - I'm also sure they're all wrong.
I am very amused by the way creationists think of scientists. Don't you think that if things were so simple and obvious, then most scientists would have noticed the problems here a long time ago? The scientific community is the most competitive community there is - scientists fight each other all the time and try to disprove each other's theories. And yet, the theory of evolution has remained intact for over 150 years. No one who does science has yet managed to disprove it. Not a single piece of evidence has yet been discovered that disproves the theory of evolution. Hundreds of thousands of biologists - each of whom would have gained world fame if they had succeeded in refuting evolution and establishing another theory in its place... but no one has yet succeeded in doing it.
But 'someone' claims to understand much more than a billion biologists, who deal with the field every day. How lucky we are to have him, really.
------
my new blog - Another science
I do claim that even a billion biologists who claim that bacterial resistance is evidence for evolution do not understand what they are talking about. And unlike them I can also justify my claims.
someone,
If any geologist's religion stated that the world is flat, you can be sure there would be a number of people who would believe it.
I repeat - 150 biologists are 0.0015 of the total number of biologists in the United States. If you want to show that there is a real debate in science on this issue, you have simply failed. As for the evolution of the bacteria, I suggest that you go study the subject more deeply, before you claim that 479,500 biologists do not know what they are talking about.
------
my new blog - Another science
To Anonymous, I detest radical Islam as much as you do, yet you cannot assume that all Arabs "want to destroy us".
The state needs to create, first and foremost for its Arab citizens, equal and non-discriminatory conditions, and what this implies is that we must separate from the illusion called a "Jewish state", and base the nationality on Israeliness, and not on sectarianism, a citizen is a citizen no matter where his parents came from. Citizens who happened to be born into the wrong nationality live in the country, and we have no right to deny their legitimacy to live here under the excuse that it is a "Jewish country", and to dictate to them the rules, how and where to live. They are also entitled to demand that the state recognize them as citizens with equal rights to the point of changing the flag and anthem, or any other discriminatory "definition" that the state has taken upon itself to include only its Jewish citizens.
The Arabs will indeed want to "destroy us" or create a Muslim regime here based on Sharia law, let's say, they will be dealt with in accordance with the law, and there is no need to be afraid of that - and this fear is not a reason to continue the fascist policy that the country has been conducting throughout its history.
to roi-
As I think Michael claimed that there is no biologist who does not support evolution, I proved that this is not true.
"In other words, only 0.15 percent of scientists who know the subject, allow themselves to ignore the evidence and the reality and state that there is no evolution." - Nice. And how many geologists object to the fact that the world is round? Exactly zero. So 150 biologists is too much for a theory that should be solid as a rock. Even more Most biologists don't deal with evolution at all, so they don't understand it enough. As evidence, most biologists claim that bacterial resistance is evidence of evolution, while in reality it is a point mutation on a target site or a plasmid or an activated pseudogene. So even 99 percent of biologists don't really know what they are talking about. talking
wall and mast,
Unfortunately, these are actions backed up (either silently, secretly shaking hands, or with full consent) by some of the Jewish rabbis.
A small note to the words of 'someone', who claims that there are approximately 150 biologists who oppose evolution. According to a 1995 study, there are about 480,000 scientists in the United States who work in the life sciences, and accept the theory of evolution as truth. In other words, only 0.15 percent of scientists who know the subject, allow themselves to ignore the evidence and reality and state that there is no evolution.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of those who oppose evolution (all those 0.0015 of the total number of scientists in the USA alone), believe in the Christian / Jewish / Muslim religion to an extreme.
If you reached the final stage of 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire', and you were asked if there is evolution, you could answer no and lose all the money. And when you would complain that there are scientists who believe there is no evolution and that there is a debate about it, they would show you the data: for every four thousand scientists you ask if there is evolution, you will find that only one believes there is no such thing. It is no longer called an argument. This is called irrationality under the auspices of religion and faith.
------
my new blog - Another science
to Michael-
someone:
As a mathematician I tell you that you understand Elisha precisely because you do not understand a thing and a half in mathematics.
In order to deal with the calculation of this type of probability, you first need a faithful model of reality on Earth when it is described mathematically.
No one has such a model –”-not true. The number of events can easily be calculated in the number of stars in the universe. Even professional evolutionists do this in abiogenesis calculations.
Especially not of reality as it prevailed for the hundreds of millions of years before life was created or of the period in which it was created."-
You don't need special conditions in mathematical calculation, just understand the number of possible combinations.
We also need the artist model of the entire chemistry - something we are still far from.
All this before you have to understand anything about mathematics itself." - Chemistry is not mathematics
"
In general - after all, it is clear that the attempt of tree leaders to present "scientific" claims that contradict the opinion of all (but all!) of the scientific community is simply pathetic.
See a statement signed by all the academic institutions in the world: "So suddenly you trust a scientist and not yourself? Where is your sense of criticism? And if tomorrow all the biologists claimed that human evolution took place in only a week? Even then would you claim that you trust them? But if you have already asked- So there is a list of 700 scientists, including about 150 biologists, who oppose evolution. Why don't you trust them? Just because you want to believe in evolution? For comparison, how many geologists support that the earth is flat? Zero. And it is not the rabbi that determines but the very fact that there are opponents and there is a debate.
Roy, regarding the link you provided in response 106, it is about the creatures of the shell products of the religion and not about the Jewish 'core' itself which warns against harm to the 'Ger'.
you know what,
At least we no longer have to argue about the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
The question is whether in a hundred years they will already be arguing about another issue or whether the debate is over
On evolution is the last crusading fortress.
someone:
As a mathematician I tell you that you understand Elisha precisely because you do not understand a thing and a half in mathematics.
In order to deal with the calculation of this type of probability, you first need a faithful model of reality on Earth when it is described mathematically.
No one has such a model - especially not of reality as it prevailed for hundreds of millions of years before life was created or of the period in which it was created.
We also need the artist model of the entire chemistry - something we are still far from.
All this before one has to understand anything in mathematics itself.
Since charlatans like you have already appeared on the site, you are invited to prove your understanding of probability by taking on a challenge that I posed to you as a friend:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/animals-one-celled-ancestors-2402081/#comment-40130
In general - it's clear that the attempt of tree leaders to present "scientific" claims that contradict the opinion of all (but all!) of the scientific community is simply pathetic.
See a statement signed by all academic institutions in the world:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
brick:
The nonsense you wrote is already written in the book of nonsense.
Why did you bother repeating it here?
Arnon:
You are welcome to continue to ignore the facts and call their exact description a "simplification"
In fact, you have proven that you are completely incapable of driving otherwise.
You are not even able to read what is written to you, so there is no point in me repeating here the answers that all your words in the last response have already received in this discussion many times.
Ha ha ha:
This time you justified your name more than all the other times.
It is not Roy's ignorance that bothers you, but your inability to understand what is being read.
Arnon wrote that for 2000 years no Jew has harmed a non-Jew because of his religion, Roy gave him an example that this is a lie, and you in response tell Roy that he was burned because not only did Arnon lie but his words were against the express laws of your sect.
The last anonymous user was me
Because of*
arises*
Sorry for the many typos, more than usual. My only excuse is the late hour I wrote the comment
Amadeus, I am a secular Jew, and a permanent opponent of religious coercion on the site and in Israel in general. But I still think that most of the problems that exist in the Arab public come from within it and not from the Jewish people.
And I am still in favor of a state for the Jewish people (as a nation and not as a religion) and only because of the existence of an Arab population in Israel and in the world that there is nothing more desirable than to see us destroyed = whether we are a secular or religious people - as long as we do not convert to Islam.
So even though, as I said, I am disgusted by the part of the religious public that tries to impose its laws and traditions on the people and the laws of the country, I am more disgusted by extreme Islam (which is in the majority) since it is from it that more violence travels than any other religion.
And again - maybe all violence would disappear if there was no religion in the entire world, but certainly not if only the Jewish religion disappeared.
And by the way, the reactions, especially the last one of "ha ha", proves without a shadow of a doubt the rot, wickedness, ignorance, racism and primitiveness that characterizes the contemporary Israeli Jewish "morality" that characterizes broad layers of all those who call themselves "Jews", religious and secular, and you more Dare to come and declare that Judaism is a moral, noble, and spiritual thing, when it actually cultivates herds of evil-spirited beasts that hate people, who draw inspiration from the same noble biblical morality that advocates the destruction of human beings on the basis of faith.
And of course the policy of apartheid against the Arab public in Israel and abroad is a direct symptom of the Jewish religion that has invaded our regions recently.
You dodge again. Your peppered explanations are neither relevant nor interesting, I'm talking about the bottom line, which is unequivocally implied from the story itself as it is written.
Simple or not simple, according to the story the people were punished for not doing wrong, out of the tyranny and narrow eye of God, this is what is implied in the text and I'm afraid you will not be able to contradict it.
Again, your ramblings about the energies are meaningless, nothing is written about this in the text, it is written that God actively punished ("we will destroy their language" "and scatter over the face of the earth"), not that they brought it on themselves without God's intervention (and if it happened By himself, why did he have to go down, look, and only then scatter them..?).
And if building tall towers brings devastating results, why don't all the skyscrapers collapse one after the other around the world...? (Although we did see how God, with the help of his faithful messengers, overthrew some of them not too long ago). Many of them are built mainly out of "arrogance" to build the tallest building in the world.
You are evading again, what does it matter if the Israelites accepted the mitzvot or not?
What are you claiming in the bottom line? Did they deserve it? That it was appropriate to do so? I don't know about you, but any sane person would consider murdering people for praying to something as an act of filth, even if it's a statue or a watabar. Obviously, the fanatical monotheists are the ones who made the act of worshiping material objects a sin, when in fact there is nothing immoral about it, or at least nothing more than praying to the air or to an ancient wall.
How is the political-religious struggle relevant? On the contrary, a religious struggle indicates the primitiveness and barbarism of those involved in the matter, and probably does not present God and his so-called messengers in a positive light who felt the need to exterminate competing religions.
Yes, the truth is, I would have preferred them to remain Baal believers, instead of the sick evil called "monotheism" developing in all its shades.
We speak different languages, your moral development seems to be at a very poor level, as you are unable to see why it is wrong to murder people for believing in the "wrong" religion. Even if they sacrificed human beings (although Elijah did not kill them because of that, but because they prayed to the weaker God), do you justify the destruction of the ancient peoples and cultures of South America by the Spanish..?
Besides, I don't think Judaism has a problem with human sacrifices, Abraham was commanded to do so, and the consideration of his daughter's sacrifice to God will open up a normative act.
"For 2000 years, no Jew has harmed another non-Jew because of his faith, but only because of self-defense"
Am I talking to a wall? Haven't you read the Bible? Jews murdered gentiles for being gentiles right and left, why are you lying?
There are enough examples even today, see the value of settlers, who engage in terrorism against kosher Jews, chastity guards, and simply an ultra-Orthodox mob, or just a proud Jew who organizes pogroms against anyone who dares to rebel against their authority or, God forbid, belongs to the wrong nationality.
"Indians do not concern themselves with the beliefs of other nations but only with the beliefs of their own people inside"
I have a bit of a hard time with this claim, because I'm not Jewish, but for some reason the ultra-Orthodox see fit to prevent me from buying bread on Passover or traveling by bus on Shabbat...
Many Jews in Israel are concerned with the faith of people whom they define as "Jews" and think that they are in a position to know what is good for them, even if they do not need their "Judaism". I think this pretty much contradicts your claim.
Can you briefly explain what exactly "Orwellian belief" is, and how it deals with the beliefs of others..?
A quick glance at the laws of the Halacha and the Sanhedrin, makes it very clear why it is critical to separate religion from the state in Israel, and to keep these sorcerers and shamans as far away from politics as possible, and may God protect us from the "Jewish morality that is updated according to the precedent" (which is such an absurd argument that if you believe it, I I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise).
Cezana, your nakedness is simply amazing, in our holy Torah it is said: You must not give a non-communist or a gentile even the right to park in the Holy Land, that is, you must not sell, lease or give even a tiny piece of land to a gentile and a mitzvah since the days of Joshua ben Nun to drive out and destroy all the gentiles in the Land of Israel. From this you will understand why there is to remove all the Gentiles from the land of our ancestors.
It will come in the near future, Amen, yes, God willing. Yes, all your enemies Israel will perish.
"For 2000 years, no Jew has harmed another non-Jew because of his faith, but only because of self-defense. Jews do not concern themselves with the beliefs of other peoples, but only with the beliefs of their own people inside.
Maybe you should tell that to the chastity guards, who destroy and vandalize the apartments of Christians.
http://www.hofesh.org.il/crime/terror.html
------
my new blog - Another science
Michael
Since we're entering an ever-widening circle, and since I don't want to fight, it's perfectly fine for me to let you have the last word. I said what I said.
Good night.
Michael: "What we are telling you" You understood the principle of your words, but I don't have to agree with it, your simplification, evolution->progress->science without faith/power over it->spiritless utopia that is founded on a logical basis, absolutely does not work for me, I don't have to agree with your words, unless you are inclined to fascism. I wonder what your perfect world order will be like on the day when all religions disappear (1984 or worse still 1939, 10/1917? In their modern form), suffering and backwardness originate in human nature, not in religion or even in one regime or another, these tools are an excuse for public woes, they Those who create their own environment for better or for worse, soon you will blame the religions for the pollution of the earth and the tilt of the earth's axis, a bit of proportion.
Let's agree that we don't agree, don't try to explain to me what I understand from my words or not, I know the interpretations of the simple, the sermon, and the secret in the Torah at least as much as you do, and there are several stages in the essence of the punishment, if you don't understand it's not just a slap in the hand, the cause of an equal punishment For their choice to focus on the tower and idolize themselves (man->photographer in his image->idol as a result of the photographer, you are the ones who did not understand the idea and the spirit of the times and the principle of "measure for measure"), I am talking about the reason of course that the result of the punishment was due to a higher power but the reason is Their action that created the power to punish, do you understand? The supreme power does not invest unnecessary energy according to Judaism and its response comes against the people of Babylon.
the Golden calf? This act preceded the people of Israel who received the commandments, at least in some historical moments;) Do you know the sequence of events in the Bible at all? The prophets of Baal, innocent? Elijah the prophet lived in a time of political-religious struggle between two peoples, does that remind you of something? By the way, according to sociologists, worshiping idols is a more primitive stage than belief in one god, so you prefer ACM who sometimes sacrifice people to Molkh/Dagon, or defecate before their humble idol "Baal Peor"... fine.
I will clarify and summarize my words for the sake of the doubt: for 2000 years, no Jew has harmed another non-Jew because of his faith, but only because of self-defense. Jews do not deal with the beliefs of other peoples but only with the beliefs of their own people internally, this is a tremendous achievement compared to the other beliefs including the Orwellians who aspired to the NWO in the last century, for general knowledge since the Sanhedrin ceased to function (approximately 425) no Jew can be punished for his actions by his sons Man, even in her time the Sanhedrin that executed a person every 70 years, the Sanhedrin is called a tyrannical Sanhedrin and that is for acts against humanity, such as theft, murder, robbery, rape and not the laws of the religion, so learn the difference between the written Torah and the Jewish Torah, not everything that is written is done Like robots (intellectuals?), there are moral laws given at Mount Sinai and known since time immemorial, they are the evolution of Judaism if you will and adapt themselves to the era in which they live, in conclusion science and progress are blessed, but without spirituality they are an empty vessel, a machine without spirit that is destined to rot.
There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are people like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered. (38) Those who deny Our revelations are deaf and dumb in darkness. Whom Allah will He sends astray, and whom He will He places on a straight path. (39)
quran
To Elisha - I actually understand you. All mathematical calculations actually strengthen the theory of planning, more than evolution. For example - a scientist named Hubert Yuki checked and found that the chance of the formation of a protein (cytochrome c) is one in 45^10, which is a number of 45 zeros. And that's more Nothing compared to the many proteins built from 300 amino acids. Another problem is that only when most of the protein skeleton is present, the protein can fulfill its function, that is, a simpler protein will not perform the above action, which requires the formation of long proteins only for specific functions.
Hello everyone,
It's been a long time since I've really had a chance to enter the site (studies...), good article (the comments are a little less - not that I read them all), it's a bit of a shame to see quite a few pointless and baseless comments here (from people who don't know that logic is related to knowledge, which unfortunately they don't have) The whole point is defamation of the site/site commenters/science, etc...
It is a little difficult for me to understand what people who do not have any scientific orientation do on such a site (I have never entered a religious/Orthodox forum) and even if I did I would not post casual comments and spam against the mindset of the site.
There was one message from someone who claimed that the researchers were wasting their time studying pointlessly, it seems to me that the same commenter did not think what his world would look like without all the scientists/engineers in the last thousands of years who spent a lot of time to acquire knowledge and advance the technology (I have no doubt that in this introduction we also destroyed our world - I hope that the green trend will get stronger and maybe in a few decades the world will look better), it seems to me that the same commenter should have lived a few thousand years ago and then maybe he would understand what the effects of science and the accumulation of knowledge are.
Keep up the quality articles, I hope that soon I will have time to read these articles
Have a good night everyone
Elisha:
Regarding your response 97, I don't know what to say except "read my words again and maybe this time you will understand"
Elisha:
What you are doing in response 96 is simply not beautiful.
In your original response (20) to which I responded, you did not talk about evidence "from the field" at all.
Of course there are, and there are, but you didn't address the issue at all.
You talked about things that you described as illogical and my responses were intended to prove to you (and they did prove) that your claims about the illogicality of evolution are illogical and contradict unequivocal facts.
In the following you already deviate completely from what we talked about before and suggest that we give our first impression priority over a more learned impression.
It's just weird advice that I'm sure you don't believe in yourself.
I want to remind you that in the distant past (the past in which the first impressions were really formed) everything was attributed to God - starting with the movement of the heavenly bodies, through the weather, through earthquakes and ending with the fertility of women.
We owe all our progress to our ability to replace the first impression with more established impressions and there is no doubt that evolution is more established than the legend of creation.
Not only is evolution mathematically provable and it does occur in any environment where the conditions that allow it exist, and this includes the animal world, and not only is there thousands of evidences - both in fossils and in genes and in controlled experiments that all support evolution, but on the other hand - the theory of intelligent design has absolutely nothing! Not a mathematical proof, not a single supporting finding, you could not point to who is planning it and how it came into the world, simply nothing!
I don't know why you see a hard problem with the existence of neutral mutations.
It just seems ridiculous to me.
It is clear that if there are neutral mutations then they will not become extinct and will not take over and will eventually be found in the population alongside other neutral mutations.
This is simply another proof of the randomness in the matter. After all, if all the mutations were beneficial or harmful and not neutral - precisely then there would be reason to suspect that someone's hand is above and he is causing the mutations not to be random!
Your description of Dawkins - a well-known and highly respected professor - is an insult to intelligence and I will not address it beyond this statement.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. According to the story, God hates humans, he is afraid of the human spirit, of man's desire to surpass himself and to break the limits of knowledge. As if God lived on a cloud, and the tower would break the floor of the house he lived in... What was God actually afraid of?
"They lacked spirituality" "They tried to touch the creation in an arrogant way" - these are meaningless twists and turns that can be invented as much as you can think of, but the simple fact is that none of this is written in the text, and I treat it as it is, because if everyone invents an interpretation we will get nowhere Place.
It is impossible to really understand from the text what bothered God, but what is clear is that humans did not do anything wrong, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone really knows what "and we will make a name" means.
Most of all, the plot does not present humans in a negative light, but God, who is presented as an evil bully who is afraid that someone will compete with his power. He uses the tactic of "divide and rule", he is afraid of humans when they are united, understand each other, agree with each other, and thus are capable of useful and productive actions, and have no reason for quarrels and conflicts. It is much more profitable for God that humanity be divided and conflicted on a cultural and religious background. God wants human beings to be submissive, obedient, and content with what they have, lacking ambition and aspirations, whose only desire is to be enslaved to the "Creator".
Note that there is no mention in the text of moral transgressions, or any kind of spirituality you are talking about, you confess things from your heart.
Are the pyramids, Greek temples, Gothic churches, and modern skyscrapers nothing more than "lack of spirituality and arrogance"?? Should humanity be ashamed of all the wonderful architectural structures it has created throughout history? I think that the very act of building is much more positive and beneficial than other things that people engage in, including religion.
The desire to build bigger, taller, stronger, more beautiful, is a noble human trait that has brought about progress that has not stopped to this very day, and is one of the things that make our species unique. The story of the Tower of Babel goes exactly against this, and therefore in my opinion it is a pathological hatred of the human race (of course Judaism has a glorious tradition of hating humans starting from the authors of the Tanakh, to the ultra-Orthodox rabbis today).
Do not evade, the Torah was written by Jews, and even if it is based on myths of other nations, they were written according to the agenda of the Hebrew religion. The messages that are embodied in the practicalities of the Bible are a direct product of the beliefs and values believed in by the people who wrote this book, and the Bible describes a society that is very similar to the extreme Muslim society today, a society where violence against women, foreigners, and people who do not accept their religion is justified and desirable.
"You will not find a single Jew in the entire history of the last 2000 years who killed someone just because he believed in X or Y"
Allow me to say hahahaha, assuming you don't think the stories of the Tanakh are fictional stories, let me direct you to the stories about the golden calf for example, or the prophets of Baal and Elijah, in which mass murders of innocents are described on a religious basis, of course by kosher Jews with the approval and guidance of God in and of himself. Have you even read your "sources" recently...?
To Michael
A detail in your comment that I missed: "Imagine there was a type of animal that likes to commit suicide and you would say about it that "it is absurd that the species that is more successful at committing suicide has become extinct".
is what we wanted to prove. A tendency to commit suicide does not correspond to the activity of the biological mechanism as far as we understand it (although there are animals that carry out collective suicide trips, but this is probably the exception, and there seems to be some reason for this).
To Michael
The fact that I didn't answer you is not because I have nothing to say. I didn't mean to offend, I just thought it was unnecessary to get into more futile arguments. In short, the simulation between computer operation and the evolution of living organisms can only be valid up to a certain level, and in any case it cannot come as a winning claim, at the expense of evidence "from the field".
As for the survival chances of mutants in relation to the details that don't change, surely there is something to it, even a lot. The only question is whether this is the sole factor driving evolution (and in general, whether the critical mutations are really accidental). And as mentioned, the question becomes even more acute in light of the fact that the mutants themselves make every effort, and devote precious mitochondrial energy, precisely to avoid becoming "mutants".
The question is fundamental. If we look at the forms of life on Earth, and the first thing that comes to our mind is that this life gives the apparent impression of being the result of intelligent planning, then if someone comes and says: Look, friend, even though it seems that way, the facts are the opposite, and life does not result from intelligent planning - then Not that there is no place for such a claim, but the negation of the other possibility should at least be at the level of almost absolute certainty. All the more so when the claim is based on regressive factors only. Everything is fine in the theory of evolution, except for the assumption of chance. What to do.
By the way, and correct me if I'm wrong, in most of the cases where the action of a mutation was proven in the field, the mutation was not in real time, that is, it existed at least in the species for a long time, and some of the individuals in the species were prepared "in advance" with survival properties suitable for certain environmental changes (at least when it comes to multicellular organisms). Species that did not initially have variants resistant to change, really became extinct, as the good old Darwin said. Such a scenario seems to me at least more likely than the statistical bet on the chance of a mutation being created in real time and surviving the entire process.
In any case, the main question is less about the survival of species under changing conditions, and more about their initial creation from nothing and the first development of organs. Here, in my opinion, there is a critical lack of distinction, even among people who are well-versed in the umbrella, between mutations whose survival effectiveness is inherent in their very nature (eye, ear, resistance to heat or cold) and those whose benefit depends on environmental circumstances (color, etc.), and in fact are essentially neutral. There is no doubt, and it cannot be denied, that the vast majority of the proven mutations - if not all - belong to the second type. difficult problem.
post Scriptum. I'm far from enthusiastic about Dawkins, and I think even if I were a Darwinist I wouldn't love him. Some of his explanations of evolution are at such a level that if a candidate for the Faculty of Biology were to write them in the entrance exams, he would be gently suggested to choose another subject (see his description of the formation of the eye from skin(!!), i.e. from a perfect tissue of cells that have already undergone differentiation. You don't need to be an expert to biology to realize that this possibility is ridiculously far-fetched; at least he would have based the description on stem cells at some primary level or another).
Arnon:
Just because you point out that I'm condescending doesn't make it true.
Repeating it just makes you a snooze.
But the worst thing is that you don't understand what they are telling you - not what we tell you and not even what your holy Torah tells you.
The one who brought disaster on the people in the legend of the Tower of Babel was not the people themselves but God.
You should go back and read the story and then read again what I and Amadeus wrote for you.
post Scriptum. "And something about the Tower of Babel: you should know that it's just a legend."
You are amusing, we talked about arrogance or not... don't judge people's mindset with crude scientific tools, not everything can be learned mathematically.
To "Amadeus": You probably didn't understand anything from the "action", the lesson is that where the level of human knowledge ends, the disaster that they themselves created begins, their attempt to "touch creation" without spirituality in an arrogant way was also their discrimination, the sin of hubris Pen Nafoutz" was the damage they inflicted on themselves, God was only the catalyst for the punishment, they were scattered in the first place because of their initial intention.
If they were spiritually balanced the disaster would have been avoided. The very worship of themselves as the center is the sin, because as a result they abandon the accepted ideals of morality, not the breeder or the desire for development is the cause of the punishment. "Pathological hatred of people" probably "on the thief's head the hat is on fire", there are crooked people in every sector who take advantage in one way or another of the framework they live in, don't dismiss entire sectors!
There are people whose wisdom you could certainly learn from, the fact that your wave is only modulated in one direction, this is your reception problem not my transmission problem;), my receiver receives almost all frequencies with desired filtering, with you the reception and transmission work in one direction and not simultaneously. The proof, quote: "The disgusting "values" that the ancient Jews believed in" There is nothing to add to such a hostile quote, unnecessary. In any case, for general knowledge the Tower of Babel was built by the "Sailing Generation" the remnants of the "Flood Generation" preceded by a "human generation" who lived eons before them, the Israelites were created after a much later period and the story is an ancient reminder that is not associated at all with the "Jewish people" ", according to Judaism it was brought down by a higher power and according to historians it originated in the writings of a Sumerian mythological story called "Anmarker and Adon Arteta" so why do you attack the "disgusting"?
Michael, your hidden fears of fundamentalism or one form of totalitarian government are not related to the Jewish religion, you will not find a single Jew in the entire history of the last 2000 years who killed someone just because he believed in X or Y, self-defense is a different thing. Judaism is certainly not a political religion as its goal is global takeover, if you live outside the State of Israel you are free to do what you want, it is between you and your creator or as they say "by the hands of heaven", pure Communism denied belief in a higher power, therefore it is not a religious "religion" In the conventional sense it is a new world order NWO, don't blame all the harms of the world on religions, the person who studies pure Communism in its purest form aspires to a utopia similar to your way of thinking ie, there is no place for "irrational" beliefs Science and technological development are the ones that are important, we saw where "Stalin" He dragged all of Eastern Europe with him, to this day one can expect damages and not only the economic ones. (loss of purpose and spiritual essence)
Elisha:
I forgot to address one of the false claims in your theory - a claim because it fails to deal with the fact that exactly the same type of evolution based on random changes and natural selection allows us to solve computer problems.
According to your theory "it is absurd that the one who is most successful in copying is harmed".
Your mistake is on several levels:
On the syntactical level - imagine that there was a type of animal that likes to commit suicide and you would say about it that "it is absurd that the species that is more successful at committing suicide has become extinct".
It is a mistake to interpret the word "success" out of context.
If "success" in a certain action causes damage to survival then there is no absurdity in the fact that it is the successful ones who become extinct.
On the factual level - your mistake is in the guarantee between the level of the individual and the level of the general.
Individuals that succeed in replicating in a more precise manner will not usually become extinct. On the contrary - the percentage of those similar to them in the population will increase. They will only fail when the environment changes to such an extent that they cannot adapt to it.
At the level of the individual - every individual will become extinct if it is not suitable for the environment - even one that has reproduced with mistakes.
Moreover - statistically - because the individuals in each generation represent the traits that have passed all the tests so far - the chances of a mutant to succeed are lower than the chances of someone who is an exact copy of his parents (because most likely the environment in the current generation will be very similar to the environment in the previous generation).
Only a tiny fraction of the mutations give the mutant an advantage and only these mutations succeed in natural selection.
As Dawkins says - there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive and therefore most changes from something living lead to something dead.
But what happens at the general level?
At the general level - if everyone is the same, then the chances of each species becoming extinct as a result of changes in the environment are greater.
Therefore, on a general level, "success" should not be measured by XNUMX percent fidelity to the source, but by fidelity in the right percentage - one that does not exaggerate the mutations but also does not completely avoid them.
Elisha:
It is really typical of the opponents of evolution to respond only to the claims they think they have an answer to and to ignore those that completely disprove their claims.
Don't forget Shigael c. Just trying to explain to you! It is not that he himself does not understand the subject, but that he thought that the parable he brings will help you open your eyes. It is clear to you that Gael did not think that natural selection works through a filter.
But why do you ignore what I told you?
After all, my words refute your claim completely!
And regarding the fact that scientists are more wrong in theory than in practice - this is just a baseless accusation designed to help you deal with the fact that all practical progress in the world is the result of the progress of science, but it is clear to anyone who understands what science and technology are that theory precedes practice and there is nothing more practical than a good theory.
If the theories were not good, the scientists would not be successful in practice either!
to Sharon (response 59)
As you can see from my previous comments I cannot be suspected of being a follower of Darwinian evolution, but I completely reject your approach. Practical science brings great benefit, and there is also full justification to examine the history of the universe and life with scientific tools and by scientists. They don't "waste their time". The fact that scientists are also capable of making mistakes (especially in theories, less so in practice) does not mean that science and scientific tools are not relevant and not justified in any respect in the study of the world.
In my eyes, too, the story of the Tower of Babel is an abominable act, which indicates the pathological hatred of man by the person who composed it, and it illustrates the disgusting "values" believed in by the ancient Jews who wrote the Tanach and invented Judaism. It is really repulsive to me how today people present the disgusting practicalities from the books of the Tanakh as a model and an example of morality.
Larnon, your last comment proved that you have no idea what you mean, and what you want to prove, because I couldn't get even one meaningful coherent thought out of it. Now it is clear that you feed on Kabbalistic ramblings and therefore there is not really much point in talking.
Legal c.
The example of the strainer you brought actually illustrates the Sifa in my words. The strainer is a passive (passive) tool, and even if it has a certain role in making the macaroni, from here it is a long way to say that the strainer is the essence and essence of the macaroni making process. If the sieve filters sand grains containing organisms and finally the organisms remain, the question is how the organisms were formed and not how they were filtered. And if we claim that the creation process of these organisms is also regressive (errors in production, which the organisms themselves fight against), this creates a fundamental problem that goes beyond the small details (which, in this case, are also problematic). So at least we need unequivocal and unambiguous proofs for both sides that evolution is really completely based on regressive factors and there is no factor that is inherently developmental (promoting development) at its core. Such proof is not available, unfortunately.
The claim that natural selection eliminated all those who were too successful in preventing errors, is exactly part of the absurdity I brought. Besides, this claim is circular, meaning that what we wanted to prove (the absolute role of natural selection) must exist at the base of the assumption in order to claim it, and therefore it has no scientific value.
Arnon:
And regarding the things you wrote to Roy:
I have no problem with respect and tolerance for history.
I have a very hard problem with the people trying to bring us back to her!
And something about the Tower of Babel:
You should know that this is just a legend.
The truth is that this is a legend with a certain wisdom because the person who wrote it understood exactly what I said and that is that multiple languages will cause war!
The wonderful "moral" that the legend tries to instill in us is that we should not try to advance too much because if we try - God will punish us.
Walla! What a piece of morality!
Arnon:
I came to the conclusion that for you I should go back and upload the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
Arnon:
You make the creator!
Most people do not use religion! It is the religion that uses them.
It is true that the religious group has the religious establishment that uses religion to motivate people, but in the absence of religion this would not have been possible.
Islam commands the killing of all non-Muslims (with a certain concession to Christians and Jews who are allowed to be kept alive as second-class citizens). It is not the Muslims who command Islam, but the opposite!
Judaism commands the Jews to kill Sabbath breakers. It is not the Jews who command Judaism!
Christianity is a missionary religion and commands its people to use all means to convert the religion of others to Christianity - again - it is not the Christians who command Christianity but the opposite.
And in relation to the strange example of Marxism: yes - Marxism was also a religion! True - not one who believes in God but one who believes in other nonsense.
I repeat: faith is what makes people fall victim to religions.
It is the religions that use the gullible believers to turn them into murderous and immoral zombies.
You should read the book The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler.
In my opinion, the Bible is an example of a revolutionary literary genre for its time, which influenced the whole world more than any other genre, I did not claim that other genres detract from or elevate from it, I expanded the point I touched on, just a little respect and patience for our common history, the echoes of the previous revolution will fade when the revolution comes the new
Michael: "People kill in an organized manner" not because of religion, they use religion as an excuse, "murder" is unfortunately a human trait that accompanies the thinking person since Cain killed Abel.
"I would prefer" we all would prefer, you think you are unusual and special, what is the matter of heaven coming down to earth? In all cultures all humans live in utopia (of course after a catastrophic mega-disaster:), the general idea remains the same, what to do that the sequence of these events skips dimensions of space, time, matter and of course human will.
To Amadeus: "In a certain sense" it is possible, for example, to abolish the family framework of marriage and sleep with whoever you want and still bring offspring into the world, without jealousy or hatred, a small example of a practical recipe for murder that is not related to any faith, the real "utopia" is the time when all the little desires And the pettiness of the human race will unite into one huge and unselfish mega idea (did someone mention the Creator?), "maybe it would be better" if I had "spiritual wings" like the Archangel Michael Come on, let's think right now within our dimension, such "desires" are a waste of energy and time , (Herzl?), you are Jews no matter how similar you are "spiritually", "gender-wise" to your ancestors, don't try to fight with the line of history, develop with it and from there we can move to the developmental circle, (perhaps utopia).
The common intelligence of the human race is too low and petty for the super age you propose, in our time at least, we tried it with the USSR in the last century and we saw the result, the human race is still too weak for such lofty ideas, and an idea smaller than the Kabbalah, when we as a common species reach the point of its developmental The technology will be high enough, we will be able to progress to the spoken utopia, remember the Tower of Babel, the first biblical attempt that failed and is basically similar to your idea, the lesson is the balance of intelligence and social spirituality with educational-technological knowledge, every field contributes to the development of the human race that will not stop and will always be hungry for more knowledge , an idea whose basis is taken from Kabbalah, up to a utopia in which knowledge will come naturally (Heaven) or to the extinction of man from the face of man (Flood 2? There is a promise, but if a person becomes something else, the promise may be canceled).
Three people meet in a nursing home.
One says - when I was young I was someone! I was a minister in the government!
The second says - I was also someone when I was young! I was a famous scientist!
The third says - I am someone today! Every time they say someone should take out the trash, they mean me!
There is a logical fallacy in someone's definition of the term logical fallacy.
It seems that this definition is intended for one purpose only: to allow people to claim to the world that there are missing links and wave them as refutations to evolution and at the same time define a "missing link" as something whose discovery requires at least a time machine.
There is a logical fallacy in the concept of "missing link" because it is only an imagination. The real way to show a missing link is to show the development of a biological system. No biologist has ever shown this. For example, in the famous example of the Shotton, they showed a completely different system with completely different parts, so it did not work for them, Although they tried, functionality should be presented at every step on the way to an integrated system.
In a certain sense, maybe it would have been better to give up Judaism and Hebrew, and become a secular European citizen with equal rights, instead of ending up in crematoriums or in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by Arabs who are ready to stab you at the first opportunity.
Really, where did this story lead us…..
Arnon:
I have no intention of being tolerant of the only reason why people murder in an organized manner.
While many show tolerance - all the messengers of the religion show is the ability to coerce.
I repeat: faith is not a thing in the spirit but a thing in spiritual sickness. It causes a person to give up his logical and critical judgment in favor of untested claims that are in many cases wrong.
Religion is one step beyond faith.
Religion is a system of laws that derives its authority from faith.
Therefore the laws of a religion based on the belief that God gave the laws cannot change.
No matter how much people advance in understanding reality and philosophy - the laws of religion will remain at the same level of backwardness as human culture was at the time it was founded.
Why do you think I should care that I live in Israel, speak Hebrew and my name is Michael?
I would prefer a situation where there were no countries (including Israel), no religions (including Judaism) and one language that everyone speaks.
It is a world where there is no artificial reason for war.
This is the world that Einstein dreamed of and about which the Beatles wrote the song Imagine
Therefore, the fact that I live in such a crazy world where members of all religions fight each other to such an extent that it is necessary to establish a state that will be a refuge for the persecuted members of Judaism - a world where those persecuted do not understand the fact that the state was established to provide them with a refuge from the troubles caused by religions and insist on establishing it specifically in Israel Israel for religious reasons and against any possibility of living in peace - a world where they choose to "live" the Hebrew language so that there will be no reasonable access to the scientific literature written in the world and so that it will be necessary to translate all software - this fact makes me sick.
Modesty?!!
Arnon,
Claiming a simple claim - "The Bible, even according to the historians' method, brought order and morality..."
Now you seem to be talking about something completely different. Let's go back to your original claim. The facts show that even in times when there was no Bible, there was order and morality, even though there were ups and downs throughout time - just as there were when the majority of humanity followed the path of some biblical religion.
And again, if you want to claim that the Bible brings order and morality to human society, and without it moral laws cannot exist, you also have to explain how this statement fits with the city-states of Athens and Sparta, in their time there was no Bible, but there was still morality and order The need is enough. In fact, those cities were not ruled by religion either, but by secular rulers, so it is difficult to say that even some all-encompassing religion provided them with order and law.
------
my new blog - Another science
Michael, my interest with you is not in arguments, in my opinion there is a better way to deal with this debate without the need to insult/slander other beliefs, it is a waste of energy for nothing and sometimes even more harmful than helpful, my words also concern your phlogta bars, faith concerns the spiritual/mental aspects of a person I separate education from philosophy and social and personal intelligence, Judaism knows how to separate these aspects and there is no need to show much hostility, science is science, faith is faith and it is connected in deep social psychological and sociological layers that no truth of one kind or another can erase, you live in this land not by virtue Science but because of the book of the Bible that you slander, if it weren't for it you would be considered a full-fledged European citizen and you wouldn't be the Jewish "Michael" who writes in Hebrew, a little humility also in connection with your prophecy, what I will mention and what not :/
For the shepherds, the outbreak of religions has always resulted from deep catastrophic crises of the human race, for example the fall of the Roman Empire and the invasion of the barbarian tribes, the former empire was like a concoction and a book region of anarchy, the Christian religion imposed a new order on most areas of the former empire and, moreover, mental healing for a society that sank into a dark age, no Because of religion or belief, but because of the destruction of a certain purpose that Rome as a society extracted the whole of, from where the so-called spirituality reached its peak during the Renaissance and gave a healthy platform to the researchers of that time to develop human society to the next step, such highs and lows can be found in almost every society in history, from the Chinese, Inca , Jews and even the Indians and the Arabs, all of them have experienced ages of development and some of them still dwell in one dark age or another, that we will reach a utopia where human society needs a balance between spirit and intelligence, we will speak, meanwhile we as a society are not developed enough for such a utopia.
One last thing,
Here are several more examples of articles and references regarding "missing links" in the development of birds and other species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution
https://www.hayadan.org.il/from-mice-to-bat-in-the-lab-1801089/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/platypus-genome-holds-clues-to-evolution-of-mammals-1005087/
now*
I personally enjoyed the series so much that I saved it on my computer (I usually watch and delete shows) so that I can pass it on to my nephews when they are old enough to understand and to friends who will know.
So far I have only received very positive responses
Tzachi,
I can recommend you a National Geographic program that is highly recommended on the subject of the evolution of birds:
National Geographic - Evolution: Ancient Turkey
National Geographic – Morphed – Dino Turkey
There are a total of 2 other programs in the series on the subject of evolution, all of them teach in an instructive way about the development of another species of animal (and I am generally very critical of the sometimes rather superficial programs of National Geographic):
National Geographic - Evolution: The Bear /
National Geographic – Morphed – Bear Necessities
Evolution: The Walking Whale /
National Geographic – Morphed – The Walking Whale
I personally (since I don't have a TV) saw the features through the computer, which means they can be downloaded. But I won't post where it can be downloaded for obvious reasons (I'm sure you can find it with a simple search - even with a Hebrew translation, that's how I found it).
Roy and Michael - thank you.
I read and I did get a little wiser.
Tzachi:
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning.
The phrasing you used such as "is there any proof or explanation for the intermediate stages of evolution" suggests that you have never come across any explanation or proof in the field and not just on the subject of wings.
In fact, it can be understood from him that in your opinion there is no proof in the field and such an opinion can only be held by someone who has not learned anything about the subject because there are countless findings in almost every field of animal development - including findings of evolutionary processes that scientists have observed throughout their entire length.
If your question is only about the wings, then there are many opinions on this subject and it is difficult to know what exactly happened (this is a well-known feature of any claim about the distant past that no one watched to record it) but you can find something about the matter in the following link:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1690052&blobtype=pdf
Arnon,
Moral laws existed long before the Bible. Such can be found in ancient Egypt, in the Legend of Gilgamesh, in ancient Greece and in general also among the inhabitants of isolated islands who have never been exposed to the Bible - and yet avoid murders and aliens. These facts (which are indisputable), indicate that basic morality is inherent in the human race, and that the laws of the Bible only served to confirm that morality - but no more than other religions of those times did.
------
my new blog - Another science
Tzachi,
There are certainly fossils that are intermediate stages of the formation of birds. In fact, they were discovered almost 150 years ago. The fossils include the dinosaur's feather signature and bird-like appearance of the wings, but also demonstrate that it had toes on the tips of its wings, claws and teeth, similar to reptiles.
To read in Hebrew:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ארכיאופטריקס
I recommend looking at the same entry in the English Wikipedia as well, and following the links that appear there to other entries. Archeopteryx is not the only winged dinosaur, or the only mesozoan, and the subject is truly fascinating
------
my new blog - Another science
Arnon:
Your preaching of morality is the real arrogance.
The book is indeed thousands of years old and it indeed reflects the primitive level of knowledge and moral laws of its time.
It was not this book that brought us the moral. Morality developed in the course of evolution and this book took parts of it and mixed them well with clearly immoral nonsense that they are trying to impose on us with the ease of their arms to this day.
Faith brought upon the world all the acts of organized murder and abuse and before you jump at me again like many idiots do with the holocaust as an example then I repeat and explain for the thousandth time that the holocaust was caused by faith. Although - in this case - not because of belief in God but because of belief in other nonsense, but the root of evil - and this characterizes both the Holocaust, and the Crusades, and the Islamic Jihad, and the observance of modesty and religious coercion in Israel is in the willingness of people to give up critical thinking and replace it with blind faith.
Someone already said that "religion" is "opinion" whose eye was taken out.
Dear Michael,
My question was and still is a question of wanting to learn.
I am a big believer in the theory of evolution, but this part like the example I gave in my question is definitely an obstacle for me. I sincerely ask if there is proof and fossils that they are about the intermediate stage of the formation of birds for example.
I am a science lover and look for the scientific answers to all of life's questions.
Thanks
Sharon:
When I'm not here I won't be here and I won't do anything but you claimed that then I would understand something that I didn't understand before and in this regard I have news for you - then I won't understand anything either!
I wrote my response regarding the studies because of the description of the "black holes" in your knowledge as "black holes" in the theory of evolution.
Now - so that you don't come out of this response as just scolding, I would like to answer your serious question (even though it was phrased with sarcasm).
The question was if I have a recipe for eternal life that I am not revealing to you.
The answer is - "yes and no".
I have a recipe but I do reveal to you.
In fact, it is not exactly a recipe for eternal life and in fact I already discovered it on the pages of this site quite a long time ago.
You are welcome to read the last part of the following response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/#comment-144121
Of course I won't complain if you read the entire response, but the relevant part to your question begins with the words "If there is anything depressing in our lives, it is the fact that they are transient"
Tzachi:
It is clear that your question does not stem from the desire to learn and understand but rather out of annoyance.
There are thousands of proofs and explanations - also for the subject of the intermediate stages, but the way to learn them begins with a willingness to learn and continues in the first grade.
I'm willing to help people who have done at least part of this path but I have no patience to argue with people like you.
To Michael a quote: "A stale book that is thousands of years old that reflects the zero knowledge and moral level of his time"
The above quote is as unnecessary as your inferior conceit that is not useful for a dime except for your logo and maybe your team.
If you believe or not, you alienate people who want to check and investigate, and in any case, the Bible, also according to the method of historians, brought order and morality in a time when the average human age did not exceed 35 and there was no order and laws and "every Dalim is a man", which was reflected in murder, rape , robberies are valid.
I have a question for all scholars.
Is there any explanation or evidence for the intermediate stages of evolution?
That is, animals that evolved from reptiles to birds with half a wing or any other intermediate stage?
Thanks in advance for a factual and reasoned answer.
I always feel "satisfaction" when I know that there are people like you who appreciate my investment in certain studies, when I say to myself - "It can really help someone or save a human life!"
Ha ha ha
"And there is noise in it from all the news without logic and order and without criticism. It's a shame! It's a shame! It's a shame! Those who spend their days without a path and without a purpose."
I think this sentence says it all, except that it should be addressed to yourself.
I'm one of those who "spend their days without a way or purpose", according to your definition, in research to improve the lifestyle of people like you and their ongoing security (I do this at the moment, only I'm on a coffee break). I hope you live in peace with the illusion and total denial about your lifestyle, which you actually take for granted, but are today only thanks to those pointless people (including the internet through which you post your bullshit)
My learned friend Michael, there is nothing wrong with learning, it is an important quality that distinguishes us from the animals, but the issue is what do we do with the knowledge, are we directed to contribute to ourselves (which is the purpose of learning) or to fantasies of some sort. My question to you is if you are so smart and inquisitive and knowledgeable then tell me what you will do with all your knowledge when you are no longer here or do you have a formula for eternal life that you are not revealing to us?
Sharon, you are right, this site is a site for collecting information and leave it at that, that's why it is also called the scientist - a collection of information, some of it correct in careful language and some of it a compilation of nonsense. It is not enough to absorb knowledge. The regulars on the site and they wallow in the mud and slime get lost in the forest of knowledge and thus they also write and pass from one to another untested knowledge that we will not learn delusions of any kind without moral education through a land of virtues are like seedlings without roots
And like torn leaves that move and fly from every prevailing wind Anna and Anna simply feel sorry for them and their hearts ache, their heads are buzzing
And there is noise from all the news without logic and order and without criticism. It's a shame! It's a shame! It's a shame! Those who spend their days without a path and without a purpose.
Thus said Sharon who did not even research anything from his time and who decided that it was better to just believe a stale book that is thousands of years old that reflects the zero knowledge and moral level of his time.
Prophecy was given to fools and therefore he prophesies.
Nahum:
The "black holes" are closed by studying - not by complaining about others.
Nonsense in juice!!!!!!!!
All the scientists can research, find, whatever they want, but you will never get to the real thing, it's all nonsense! You are looking for something you don't even know what it is, no one does. But you know, everyone gets their time because no one lives forever and then you will realize that everything you have done here is a waste of time! Instead of using the "wisdom" you received to nurture the lives of all of us and enrich them, you are heading toward nothing like many other researchers before you.
Too bad
The discussion here has degenerated into religious matters
Let me be pointless
Even though I personally feel some "black holes" in the theory of evolution
Dawn:
It is indeed a good platform and it is used, but there is no point in fighting against a broken turntable. A device like that should just be turned off and that's what my father did.
It should be noted that usually such drones make their noises many, many times before realizing that they are such.
See, for example, "ha ha ha": is he even having a debate? After all, all the hardware that enables thought and debate has been removed from its incarnation, which now only functions as the phonograph's resonant writing.
And what about Navem the conspirator?
Tomorrow he will quote elsewhere the nonsense he himself wrote here and say that it appeared in science.
Regarding the attack back - there are sites that do this and I don't think it's right to compete with them here.
The "Deat Emet" website, established by a rabbi and head of a yeshiva that was overseen, is full of such content.
Freedom website also does this kind of work.
When I need this kind of reasoning, I usually refer there.
In my opinion, the debate should be held. And this is a great platform for it.
Understand, the struggle of the Jewish and Christian trainers is waging a hard struggle against science
Exactly on this point. The changes in the US books are a kind of warning sign and the ban
The recently canceled research on embryonic cells is a direct continuation of this.
All lovers of knowledge and science cannot ignore the fact that there is a slow and difficult process of disillusionment
to many audiences. I believe that it is our duty to conduct a discussion and debate as poignant as possible because in their struggle there are issues
The flag of faith they try to tattoo with all their might as they stand on their last fortress.
Understand that they don't just come to disturb. It really, really hurts them and is, as they say, "in their heart's blood".
That's why I think it's okay to delete long comments whose purpose is to interfere with a fair but ongoing discussion in the world
The external is close to the mind and consciousness. Although ordinary scientists are busy rowing forward, it is not allowed
Forget the hearts of the masses who ask questions and find it difficult to find themselves in a science that becomes distant
Very much from the common man who is not knowledgeable.
My father, a scientist, has for years been able to open and simplify the subtleties and complexities of a variety of scientific subjects and this is a project
That deserves awards on a national scale and I'm sure it will happen again. So yes, this is the stage and I suggest you think
In a positive direction, grit your teeth and answer in a balanced way. The way you answer also teaches something important
The one who finally reads the comments and tries to form a worldview for himself.
Think of all the young people who are exposed to the battle of these opinions. Answer as if you are writing for them.
In my opinion, Judaism, like Christianity, is in retreat. Delusional rabbis and the process of hardening and aggravation in the commandments
Observance of mitzvot keeps many away. Instead of striving to be better and more spiritual they are busy with length
The skirt and nose picking on Shabbat. This shows that they are under pressure and this pressure is evident here.
Why not attack back? I suggest uploading a list of contradictions in the Torah, logic problems in its explanations of reality.
Why not?
According to what I read on ynet the skeleton was divided into two parts with one part sold to a museum in Wyoming after the collector added parts to it that were later discovered to be fake.
And the other part was sold to a museum in Oslo.
And on the occasion of the press conference, Ida was reunited for a photo shoot.
Like what, what stinks more than that?
What exactly needs to be done to give a shit about it, so that science will understand that it is dealing with shit
To what low does science descend in order to beat its theories against the devil
This is not an admission of anything, but simply an attempt to direct resources in a constructive direction, because if facts tested and proven billions of times do not convince these people like you but only books that are thousands of years old, there is no point in trying to convince beyond a certain number of times. All these people want is to steal our time, which is our most precious resource. They know that their arguments have been tested a million times, but they want to be tested a million and one, a million and two until our time here on earth is up, instead of admitting their mistake.
In any case, my time is limited, and I thank Michael and Roy for their patience, but there is also a limit to wasting their time on repeatedly proving the same thing, when the other side knows that it is not right but uses the tactics of the war of attrition.
The end of the last sentence should of course be - they did not have suitable mutations in the gene pool to change and meet the new conditions.
to Elisha (18) and later to Michael (30)
The response to your argument can be simplified by comparing it to a filter: it also regressively removes what does not fit. And regarding the effort of the organism to prevent mutations - it is not so great because natural selection eliminated from the stage of history all the organisms that were too successful in this, they were not able to withstand changing conditions because they did not have the appropriate mutations in the gene pool to change and meet the new conditions.
Avi! You admit with a heavy heart that you are capable of dealing intelligently with the arguments of your people Israel, since all the news about evolution is nonsense and bad-tempered talk and should be eliminated while they are still in their infancy (rhymes with evolution)
It's a pity for you that you are wrong and misleading and have fallen into the net of the great monkey Tzarli-what's his name. We share in the grief and sorrow of the entire Arab-Rav herd that is as wrong as you, in the mourning of a full recovery and that you will return to sanity from me who loves you.
While going through the talkbacks in the articles published both here and on the YNET website, I came to discover something very interesting, instead of people giving interesting opinions about the discovery and violating and expanding the discussion, the overwhelming majority of the responses were in the style of: "Here we are now introduced to religion".
It is as if no one is too interested in the discovery, as it is his desire to quiet his conscience, which probably does not give him rest as he is not completely sure of the righteousness of his sacrificial way.
The majority of people do not know how to relate to all kinds of new scientific discoveries, and jump at every opportunity to attack religion, as they did with Ida, even though scientists explicitly state:
It is too early to draw conclusions. And Ken Hamm, founder of the Creation Museum in Washington, claims that it is good material for a movie or a book, but it is difficult to define the new find as the 'missing link'. "What was wrong with all the other fossils found over the years? Why get excited about this fossil?"
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-201078-00.html?tag=14-11-45
And also see here:
http://www.hydepark.co.il/topic.asp?cat_id=24&topic_id=2627427&forum_id=4142
Well, it is appropriate here to quote the words of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's Bulldog" (Darwin's Bulldog) his son Aldous Huxley, who very honestly revealed his worldview: "We do not know (the purpose of creation) because we do not want to know, ... those who do not attribute any meaning To the world, they do so, usually because for one reason or another it suits their plans that the world be meaningless."
Aldous Huxley: (A. Huxley, Ends and Means 1937, p. 270)
And more:
"I had reasons for not wanting the world to have meaning, and as a result I assumed that the world had no meaning. And without any difficulty I was able to find satisfactory reasons for this assumption... for me, just as undoubtedly for most of my generation, the philosophy of meaninglessness was a tool for liberation... from a certain system of morality."
It's sad that this is how an education system raises a million students, who don't even know how to analyze a scientific theory like Ida, and claim like the scientists that there's not too much to be excited about, and it's even more unfortunate that they use false theories to attack our tradition that has been handed down from father to son for thousands of years.
All those fools who feel humiliated by the knowledge that they were created from a monkey or a mouse, forget that they themselves were "a little stinky" at the beginning of their pregnancy.
Indeed, we are forced to exercise discretion and with a heavy heart to cancel approval of responses whose entire purpose is to attack and repeat again and again claims we have answered, as if next time they will receive an answer that is more satisfactory to them or that the litigant on the other side will get tired and they will have the last word.
Avi Blizovsky,
Too many responses are about mere 'religious wars', and it is already difficult to impossible to enjoy informed and constructive litigation.
There is a legal principle known as the 'doctrine of defensive democracy'. In principle, it is also applicable here.
There is, of course, always a danger of the 'slippery slope', but it is possible to demand, within the framework of defensiveness, minimal formal requirements for the acceptability of a response (purity of language, minimal respect, fairness and even 'the duty of relevant reasoning') so that we are saved from the stupidity and rudeness of certain responses. Of course, the judgment must be proportionate and careful, and I'm sure, regardless of personal opinions - that the system can do it properly.
I say all this even though my personal position is reserved towards any evolution that is purely materialistic - and I have often given expression to this position.
Thanks in advance.
there is*
Michael,
I hope that "our" Noam is a partner already.
In any case, "Shomer Shabbat" is a regular hot troll in many forums. He is probably not religious at all and is just trying to create provocative reactions. I refuse to believe that even a religious person would be such an idiot and say what most religious people feel but know that it is not "politically correct" to speak in a public forum.
Shabbat keeper.
It is quite possible that you will be the majority because the seculars do not understand that they should stop funding you.
By the way - you are against democracy (as your leaders repeatedly say and also as your response indicates) so how confident are you that the normal people will not understand in the end that you should not be allowed to use democracy to abolish it?
BDS
Disgusting ads!!
There is only one father in heaven for all of us and he is certainly not a monkey!!
A day will come when we Haredim will be the majority here, and then disgusting publications such as this publication will not be approved.
In addition, when we rule here, everyone will enjoy the wonders of Torah orthodox education.
Pine:
I didn't get confused but I feel that I am somewhat to blame for your confusion because I almost always address him with a full spelling even though he always signs with a missing spelling.
Just some habit that I adapted to myself (with great pain, it must be said) during my military service (according to the army's instructions which, unfortunately and painfully, I found to be justified).
By the way - in my opinion this pleasant person is wrong in that he is looking for partners. After all, he only needs a partner 🙂
For a moment I got confused between Noam and Noam...
Then I realized that this reaction did not suit him.
Ha ha ha:
In your response (19) I found the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather…………. (and another 1000 times "grandpa's") mine
Yanon:
The only significant thing in your response (27) is the first three words.
Know that people from the settlement usually do not show off that they do not understand something and do not use their lack of understanding as "proof" that something is not true.
But you are not a person from the settlement but only a person(?) from the yeshiva
It sounds like a great idea to crossbreed a chimpanzee or gorilla with humans
You can even create the Bigfoot
A lot of money came out of it, lots and lots of money $$$,$$$,$$ from advertising
including publication in the history books
In terms of execution it seems quite simple and easy
Looking for partners and investors to run with this as a business
Elisha:
You just don't understand what you are talking about.
This mechanism that you call "regressive" is used by us today in opening software solutions for problems that there is no other way to solve. Are you going to claim in our ears that what is happening before our eyes (the fact that the problems are solved) is also not possible?
You are welcome to read my response as well:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-in-science-and-art-1805095/#comment-217035
Mister "I'm not a monkey, you are" go back into your shell
Yeon Shrev, probably Shrev really influenced you.
We are all 99% chimps and I live with that just fine. It's just a shame that humans don't recognize it and exterminate them.
I don't understand what is so funny about every scientist of his time claiming that we are a different type of monkey..
All scientists are monkeys
Big hairy monkeys.. and the rest are humans!
And whoever is nice enough to identify with the opinion that he is a descendant of a monkey, then he should go on a safari in Ramat Gan and free his ancestors from the cages..
When I become a grandfather, I wouldn't really want my grandchildren to put me in cages =]
And even marry a Kopa.. not that everyone here doesn't look like that! [and behave
I don't understand what is so funny about every scientist of his time claiming that we are a different type of monkey..
All scientists are monkeys
Big hairy monkeys.. and the rest are humans!
And whoever is nice enough to identify with the opinion that he is a descendant of a monkey, then he should go on a safari in Ramat Gan and free his ancestors from the cages..
When I become a grandfather, I wouldn't really want my grandchildren to put me in cages =]
And he'll even marry a Kopa.. not that everyone here doesn't look like that! [and behave]
Amazing: the creationists demand that the scientists provide them with empirical evidence, analyze the theories down to the guts using principles of the philosophy of science, cite articles and studies, and reject theories on the grounds that they are "unscientific" and that they are based on "faith like religion". However, they present the stories of the Tanakh, and a host of other disguises in the guise of "intelligent design", which claim, among other things, that the geology of the earth originates from Noah's flood, as a "logical" and "inevitable" alternative to these theories. To read and not to believe, people are literally trying to eat the cake and leave it intact - evolution requires scientific proof, creationism does not.
If the scientists were to invest the same time and resources in disproving "intelligent design", as are invested by all kinds of kooky religious organizations that claim to engage in science, then the creationists would turn out to be complete clowns, and even more so, liars and manipulators who deliberately mislead the public in order to influence their religious beliefs.
But luckily the scientists are not engaged in propaganda, but rather invest their time in real science, which expands the boundaries of human knowledge (something that all kinds of institutions like the "Discovery Institute" are unable to do, and the whole purpose of their existence is to clash with science, and influence the beliefs of the public).
BDS
To the response from 17:01 - the article dealt with evolution, and I addressed it in the most matter-of-fact and direct manner, and I did not address the subject of the truths of the Torah, which belongs to another discussion. I did not take from the "Discovery Institute" but from scientists like those who write in the "National Geographic" magazine and like the two scientists among them Fred Hoyle the atheist, who calculated that the probabilities of the random formation of a living cell from inanimate matter or the random formation of a human cell (regardless of what it is made of) is impossible . And it has nothing to do with God's choosing the people of Israel or being descendants of Abraham or receiving the Torah at Sinai.
Here we are talking about the possibility of a random evolutionary formation and a planned creation of all the creatures in the world on all the cells and processes in them up to man with all the incredible complexity of the brain and the brain (for example, the retina is more sophisticated than any camera created by man and its volume is like the head of a pin - see details in the matters These are in my response from 15:44), and the possibility of creation planned by a higher power is much more likely and possible than random formation. Therefore, the claims you make are not related to the actual matter.
In addition, the probability you brought up for the choice of the nation of Israel by God is a statistically reasonable possibility, and it is in any case much greater because here you have to calculate the probability according to the number of nations and not according to the number of people living in the world (which in any case 3000 years ago there were not 7 billion people but much less ).
And I did not say that if evolution is nonsense, the people of Israel received a Torah from Sinai, but that all that emerges from what I brought is that evolution is statistically impossible, and this theory has nothing to do with empirical science, and as I have already brought up above in this response such complex things as the human body, the brain, the eyes, And all the masses of cells in it with all the most complex processes in them, as well as all living beings with all their amazing properties (as I brought in the same response from 15:44), cannot be created by chance and must be a planned creation of everything. Judaism does not pretend to be scientific, but the supporters of evolution treat this theory as a solid scientific opinion, and it is not at all, its supporters adhere to this theory in a kind of fanaticism and without any real scientific basis.
The fact that I did a "copy and paste" does not take away from the seriousness of the claims and their direct relevance to the subject of evolution. I certainly won't copy word for word everything you wanted to comment on this topic.
Regarding the length of the responses: each response certainly does not exceed 50,000 words, and it is not certain that all together exceed such a number of words. Even a long response was moved in "copy" and "paste" it can be very serious and very matter-of-fact about the article as indeed the responses I brought. Therefore, just because they are long or were made with "copy" and "paste", there is no reason to disqualify such serious and factual responses that treat the topic of the article very seriously and directly.
Lariel: I made neat claims even if you did "copy" and "paste". And as I asked: what did you want, for me to type everything word for word?
I simply brought the different types of the most serious claims against evolution that show that the theory of evolution is scientifically improbable and unacceptable and has nothing to do with empirical science.
The claims I made are extremely serious and it has nothing to do with whether they were typed word for word or if we did a "copy and "paste" here.
You don't 'believe' but there is 'hope' aha,, interesting.
Hebrew is a hard language.
Poincare,
When Mr. Kramer wants to publish articles in the science, he is welcome to send the text to my father.
Until then, the comments area is reserved for comments only, and not for copy-pasting entire articles from other sites.
Thanks to all the responders,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Avi Blizovsky:
In the morning there was a long text from one Kramer. I see that commenters turned to him.
Disappeared?????
a dangerous substance?????
I think it's small and a bit petite maybe???
Lakramer: It has nothing to do with your claims for the simple reason that I cannot muster the mental resources to read, respond and conduct a discussion with a copy-paste machine.
You do not respond to the article in a matter-of-fact way.
You are a so-called "a man with a mission" who simply pours buckets of pre-written text into an article whose only sin is that it mentioned the word 'evolution'.
My inability to gather mental resources and take you seriously is my personal problem and it probably requires professional treatment, but I would be very surprised (and incredibly impressed) if any of the other respected site visitors could muster the strength to deal with you. I am small and therefore I will be silent now.
To all believers of all kinds, I really love you, but please go away.
Nothing will convince you, because you don't look at the facts.
And no, if something is written in the book it is not a fact.
If there is no other explanation for the phenomenon, it is not a fact, nor is it proof of anything.
It means there is no explanation.
So spare me the proofs for the existence of God (which anyway prove nothing about Judaism, and most of them were practiced by Greeks and Christians anyway).
You are not trying to understand the findings, but to understand how a book written in the Iron Age is the perfect description of the world, even if it contains explicit inconsistencies.
You don't even try to prove your theory, but try to disprove others.
If evolution is nonsense, does this prove that God gave the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai?
200 years ago, in a village in Poland, if you used so-called scientific (secular) arguments such as statistics to justify the Torah, you would have been boycotted....
Little by little you explain that the world has not existed for 6000 years but more because "my days are not like yours"
Again, two hundred years ago you would have lost all your friends (and the right to be part of the community) for such a statement.
But don't worry, in another 200 years even your objections today will look stupid.
You use the arguments of the (Christian!!!) Discovery Institute to justify the Torah.
What is the punishment for this, remind me? Better not to believe at all than to be a Christian as far as I can remember.
Suddenly the salvation came from an extreme Christian research institute (....yes of course).
What is amazing to me is that you say that science is wrong, imperfect, etc. and then use scientific arguments (which you don't really want to understand) to prove your position.
Statistically, the probability that God chose the people of Israel from all other nations in the world is 0.001714
(assuming there are 7 billion people in the world today, and approximately 12 million Jews).
Ah, yes, he chose Abraham out of several million people who were then alive. It doesn't really change the number higher.
This is on the assumption that he chose the earth out of a billion by a billion stars.
Is this a statistical fact that you will suddenly not accept because it is inconvenient?
Without even starting to calculate the chance that you are really direct descendants of that Abraham.
Enough, leave us alone.
Go to forums about Judaism and argue among yourselves there.
When I read an article about Judaism, on a website about Judaism, I don't leave comments about how wrong everyone is.
And the science site, with all due respect to freedom of expression, I think it is possible to censor comments from
Over 50.000 words, all cut and paste.
Friends, religion has given wonderful things to humanity, and horrible things.
I am hopeful that the historians of the future will mark the next centuries as a time when we have moved on.
Very interesting article Roy, thank you very much.
Israel Kramer, haven't the copy-paste keys on your keyboard broken yet?
More precisely: they found their Ida from their mother = the Sammit, the mother of many mothers :)=
To all the "scientists"? who found their aunt. Tomorrow we will come to visit you at the zoo and for the occasion we will bring you bananas and if you are good monkeys you will also get peanuts.
One more thing, short but fundamental.
The theory of evolution is based on two processes: random mutations and natural selection. These, according to the followers of the method, are the foundations on which development is built.
The absurd conclusion emerges from this, that the two sole causes of development are regressive factors. The living cell invests great energy and highly sophisticated activity in attempts to prevent random changes in the DNA copy (ie, random mutations), while activating highly complex repair systems. That is, according to the version of the followers of evolution, the living organism is generally anti-evolutionary in its essence; In its inherent activity it serves as an inhibiting factor for evolution, because if this depended on the organism itself, today we would be mud-like lumps of protein at most. Aliba de theory of random evolution, only thanks to the errors that that organism was unable to prevent we developed eyes, hands, ears, heart and blood circulation.
Added to this absurdity is the further absurdity, that the continuation of the process is also based on a regressive process, namely the brutal killing of all unsuitable "mutants" by natural selection, that is, the merciless destruction of all those who through their stupidity managed to prevent a sufficient number of errors in the copying of the genetic material. Both assumptions are completely absurd. In fact, the individual failures of the theory arise first of all from the unreasonable logical inversion of its basic assumptions.
The original article:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
After studying the sources in Lez it turns out that there are many paleontologists who disagree about the "discovery" -
Because this is a branch in which envy abounds,
To clarify the controversy:…
Science associates all primates (lemurs, galagos, tarsiers and great apes) to a common ancestor called haplorrhines (simple-nosed), these split into Prosimian (predecessors of the apes)
And here many researchers try to find a split in the direction that led to Apes (apes)
A family to which our species also belongs.
To date, the splitting point has not been found.
The publishers of "Ida" try to claim that "even though she belongs to the "simple-nosed"
It can be seen as the first signs of the split."
That is, they are trying to claim that already 50 million years ago the dynasty began to grow
of the great apes.
There are many researchers who oppose this and wonder,
Therefore, the commenters who referred to the "opposite toe" are also right,
But again, the obvious is important and interesting.
Someone, you should read what the purpose of the Discovery Institute is and what it was established for. It was established to tattoo the theory of evolution with arguments that to the non-professional ear sound scientific. A brief analysis of them will show you that there is no explanation for the phenomenon. Regarding probability, you probably know the saying - little lie, big lie, statistics.
The resistance against evolution today is mainly due to mathematical probability weights. For example, scientists from Discovery Institute took a single domain of a protein and calculated the chances of its formation around one to 70x10 (as the number of atoms in the universe), which is a lot. You can also look at most proteins and see that only when the multi-skeleton exists The protein can be folded into a functional protein due to the formation of sulfur and hydrogen bonds.
Aha, Roy, do you see? The "Ida that 'Mama'" always wins the mother of M.. many.
By the way, amber is also attributed to about the same time (a fossilized 'tear' of a tree from 50 million years ago).
Eden, you are half monkey too, you also have leftover tail and body hair
Ariel, the chimpanzee has an opposable thumb, he needs it to hold on to branches.
I read the comment and it seemed suspicious to me, it turns out that the man has impersonated other writers several times.
Ariel:
Your astonishment would be justified if the facts you are basing yourself on were really true.
Wikipedia says as follows:
Primates generally have five digits on each limb (pentadactyly), with keratin nails on the end of each finger. The bottom sides of the hands and feet have sensitive pads on the fingertips. Most have opposable thumbs, a characteristic primate feature; however, opposing thumbs are not limited to this order (opossums, for example, also have them).
And in a slightly more joking spirit - it should be noted that these creatures were already known 47 million years ago, so this is not such a new discovery.
Wherever he is - between them and us - there is also that person who came out of the Garden of Eden (the Garden of Eden). Turns out he's still alive.
Moz - with all due respect and respect, you are wrong in a big way.
Obviously there is evolution and anyone with a bit of intelligence at the top,
Know this more from the scientific film "Animal Farm" known in Durban.
Let me clear your head a bit. Below is the entire Torah on one leg:
The origin of the Jews is of course in the pig (explains a lot right?).
The origin of the Indians in the red panda bear from which they took the color of their skin.
The origin of Africans is a cross between the black grizzly and the elephant
(It is impossible to survive in the heat of Africa without the skin of an elephant).
The origin of the Americans is in hamburgers, pizza and burritos.
The Iranians originate from the Persians and the Persians originate from misers
(in Hebrew - Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza).
You can continue…
Now everything is completely clear!
We are all descendants of a fossil!
It's so simple and genius.
Not evolution or anything.
We are all actually the sons of fossils.
From the wonders of science.
The intention was not to collect but to whoever wrote a message that has since been deleted by the site
I haven't read the article yet but the above is pretending
It is unlikely for Assaf that man descended from the Aegyptopythecus cat.
When everyone knows that Aegyptopythecus is the ancestor.
So please don't write nonsense
Thanks to Roy for the interesting news,
To understand to what extent the discovery fills the gap, you must read the news in the original (I did not see it),
It is common for paleontologists to declare "visible" to get attention.
As far as I understand, Darwin was looking for the missing link between the apes and the apes and between the apes and man, that is, not a link but many links that are missing.
When the Aegyptopythecus was discovered (in Paeum in Egypt) which is about 35 million years old, we claimed that it was the missing link between the great apes and the apes, this did not solve the riddle since between it and the Australopithecus which are considered to be the link that predates man (Homo) about 15 million years are missing,
Millions of years are missing between the Australopithecus and the human species (Homo),
There is no continuity between the different species of man (homo) and there are many invertebrates.
If we accept the assumption that the great apes (apes) separated from the human species (homo) about 5-7 million years ago, there are still no vertebrae among the different human species.
Therefore, declaring the "missing link visible" is a bit pretentious.
And yet without a doubt visible is important
And thanks again to Roy.
There is something a little strange here. Ida has a human-looking thumb that can firmly grip objects, etc.
One of the unique characteristics of humans is the thumb opposite to the other fingers. An opposable thumb does not appear in chimpanzees and other great apes.
There is no opposable thumb in the chimpanzee but there is in the ancestor?!
Is this a trait that was lost and returned in humans?
Can someone tell me that they really think we evolved from a 10 cm mouse...
You don't have limits, eh... so during all this evolution, why aren't there people who are half mice, half humans, etc... why aren't there people who are half monkeys? Do you understand that there is a lot of difference between a monkey and a human, where are all the other species in between? Are they extinct? And the monkeys that were before them stayed?
The fact that they found one fossil that resembles an ape ancestor does not mean that the apes evolved from the same species. Only genetic testing could prove this.
It's good that there is a site that knows and writes like Roy. Less than an hour ago I heard this as the latest news on the radio newscast. Although something was said there about monkeys, the discovery was defined as a common ancestor for us and mammals.