Comprehensive coverage

Evolution or bievolution?

Guest column - Erez Garti tries to explain to the opponents of evolution that opposing this scientific fact is similar to opposing gravity, he also explains to them that what their masters taught them about evolution is simply not true

The evolution of the crustaceans. Exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum, Canada. From Wikipedia
The evolution of the crustaceans. Exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum, Canada. From Wikipedia

Gerty Cedar

A few months ago I was talking with an ultra-Orthodox friend about matters of international concern. During the conversation, the topic of evolution came up (that's how it is when you talk to me). He told me: "Evolution is heresy". When I asked him "What is evolution?", he replied: "Evolution is the spontaneous creation of life and it is heresy because it goes against the creation of the world."

Among the scientific community, evolution is considered a scientific truth, the driving force of the animal world, the biological equivalent of Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics, and hold on tight - I know a number of religious scientists who claim (and rightly so) that it does not even contradict creation. On the other hand, too many people believe that evolution is nothing more than a theory (in the shaky sense of the word) that explains the formation of life in a spontaneous creation from nothing, the formation of species from nothing, the growth of organs in the blink of an eye at random, the transformation of lizards into reptiles, reptiles into birds and monkeys to humans. All this completely spontaneously and without any logic. For them this definition contradicts creation and therefore the existence of an almighty God. It is understood that such a definition is complete nonsense, contradicts not only the laws of logic but also the laws of nature and is a mockery of science. So where does this conflict come from?

It happened to all of us that we heard half-eared gossip that aroused strong resistance and anger in us, but when we heard the full story we suddenly discovered that the demon is not so terrible and even has some truth in it. The same is the case with the theory of evolution. But before we get to the root of the problem, let's define once and for all what evolution is.

The scientific definition of evolution is "a change in the distribution of alleles in a given genetic pool over the generations", that is, the change in the distribution of a genetic element that codes for a certain trait (allele) in a population (genetic pool) over time. If the distribution of a particular trait has changed in a population over time, we can clearly say that there has been evolution here. that's it. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? After all, it is clear to all of us that if we apply natural selection to the population of zebras in the savannas of Africa, those who manage to run faster will survive longer, and therefore the trait for strong leg muscles is the one whose distribution will change (for the better) in the population of zebras. At the same time, and for exactly the same reason, the characteristic of weak leg muscles will also change (albeit for the worse). Assuming that these traits have a genetic component, we received an evolution, although not dramatic on the scale of creating a new organ or a new species, but a small and significant step for those zebras, and the examples of this are numerous.

It's all. This is the maligned evolution. Not spontaneous creation, not creation from nothing, and even its notorious randomness is limited only to the creation of genetic diversity in the form of mutations. There are quite a few evolution deniers who, on the one hand, recognize what they call "micro-evolution", that is, the evolution of "small changes", point mutations that can lead to the creation of certain morphological or physiological variation. On the other hand, they completely disbelieve in what they define as "macro-evolution", meaning the evolution of "big changes" such as the formation of an organ, tissue or a new species of organism. The division into micro and macro evolution is not clear and changes according to scientific studies that are published every now and then and I would be happy to expand on this in a separate article. If we take evolution and spread it over a relatively short period of time (say hundreds to thousands of years), we will get small changes in traits in the population, ones that we can easily recognize today, for example external characteristics in humans (skin, hair, eyes) or the subspecies of dogs and in some cases Even new species. As we go farther and farther down the evolutionary tree, the changes will add up to bigger and bigger changes, step by step, heel to toe until we reach ancient species, whether those dinosaurs 65 million years ago or primitive fish 400 million years ago. The evidence for this is numerous, is it so far-fetched?

A religious person can stand up and say, "What you say is meaningless, the world has only existed for 6,000 years," and I will answer him, "Fine, if that's what you choose to believe, you'll be fine, but from the second life appeared, there's evolution, and you can't argue with that." Another person will stand up and say "the days of creation do not really reflect days, but each day reflects a much longer period of time" and I will answer "even better, but again, from the moment life appeared there is evolution". A third person will stand up and say: "It is not possible for life to appear spontaneously, this is a complexity that is not released" and I will answer "Maybe, but again, from the moment life appeared there is evolution." Evolution is a mechanism, or a set of laws and is true of any living system, whether spontaneously or created. Evolution is not concerned (at least not directly) with the appearance of life but with its development from the first cell. This is my message - from the moment there is life there is evolution. How and when life appeared is debatable. Whoever wants to believe in creation or planning, that is his right and since it is not a scientific thing it is pointless to have a scientific debate about it. However, saying that there is no evolution is like saying "there is no gravity, there is an almighty god who is the one who guides every object that falls in exactly the right path and does not deviate a millimeter to the right or left". Fortunately, I haven't heard anyone say such nonsense in a long time.

For those who nevertheless insist on closing their eyes and asserting firmly: "despite everything you said there is no evolution" there is evidence of evolution even in the book of books, the same book that few people (several billions) insist on accepting as its language and language: according to the story of creation (Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX) Two humans were created and from them all of humanity was created. Let's make a wild assumption that they were genetically different from each other (although in light of the rib story it's not entirely clear). How did a genetic pool of two individuals create such a huge variety of genetic traits (eye colors, hair, blood types, etc.)? I am not aware of another creation process in the entire Bible that can explain the creation of traits from nothing, on the contrary there is even an extinction story that eliminated most of the individuals of the human race a short time later. If not "new and different people were created", this means that assuming that the story of creation happened more or less according to the scriptures, the variety of features developed in some way or in other words humans underwent evolution.

Let's go back for a moment to the great extinction that appears four episodes later. In the story of Noah's ark (Genesis 150:25), Noah receives detailed instructions regarding the size of the ark. He receives a clear instruction to enter two individuals of each species (except for some animals which receive seven individuals). Its estimated length is about 15 meters, width about 1.5 meters and height about 1.9 meters (according to estimates), which means that it is a vessel about the size of a minus medium oil tanker. As of today, between 3.6-10 million living species have been described, but considering that for every tree that is cut down in the rain forests, additional species of beech are discovered, conservative estimates speak of about 100 million species, realistic estimates of about 3.6 million different species of beech , and wild estimates about 7 million. All this without taking into account the species that became extinct as a result of the change of the environment by man. Let's assume for a moment that the cautious assumptions are correct, meaning that there are currently about 7.2 million species, and that the number of extinct species is offset by the number of marine species (which apparently survived the flood), and of course we double the number (after all, there were two of each species, and I'm ready to neglect all those animals pure ones who won XNUMX representatives), then we will already have about XNUMX million details. It is important to take into account the existence of volume-occupying species such as elephants, giraffes, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, bears and more (and let us not forget that there is currently more than one species of giraffes, elephants, rhinoceroses and more).

It is also important to take into account that animals need a minimum living space to exist in, a place to store food for 40 days (and let's not forget that not all vegetarian animals eat straw, and some have a very unique menu), and of course all this while taking into account the diverse living requirements of each species (heat , cold, moisture, light, darkness, high places, low places, etc.), then we will get a difficult place problem. The size of Noah's ark, as mentioned, was the size of a 5-story "train building" 150 meters long (roughly the distance between two parallel streets in Tel Aviv), so it is difficult to imagine how such a huge amount of animals, equipment and food could be squeezed in efficiently and sustained for 40 days.

The obvious conclusion then, is that assuming that the story of the flood did happen according to the scriptures (which many opponents of evolution believe) most species appeared after the flood and in other words evolved. Anyone who wants to can say that there is a higher power that directs the environmental conditions to such that it will prefer one trait over another or one species over another. One will call it God, another will call it the forces of nature, but no matter how you spin it, the tool with which these changes are caused is random mutations that stand up to the test of natural selection or in other words - evolution and it doesn't matter who or what is behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that science accepts or doesn't accept the existence of a higher power or the stories of the Bible - it really doesn't deal with it. I presented these two examples only to show that even a person who accepts the stories of the Bible as their language while blatantly ignoring all the scientific rules and the countless evidences that exist, still cannot ignore the theory of evolution. It's that basic.

In conclusion, in order to understand the theory of evolution you don't have to give up these and other principles, just as you don't have to give up the same principles in order to understand the force of gravity. Those who really want to understand how things work and not take them for granted should not compromise their beliefs. Science and religion are two parallel lines that never meet. Science deals with "how" while religion deals with "who", and therefore there is no reason for there to be a conflict. Maybe I'm naive, but from many conversations I've had with opponents of evolution, as soon as you explain to a person what evolution is from the ground up, he realizes that there is a lot of sense in it, and if there are still gaps, they are already much more tolerable and can be bridged. If we go back to my conversation with that ultra-Orthodox friend, at the end of the conversation (which lasted over an hour) he admitted that when you present it like that it makes sense. Things are not always as they seem.

Erez Gerti is a PhD student in the Department of Biological Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science and editor On the Davidson Online website


679 תגובות

  1. In fact, in all creation there are 4 levels:

    The first and lowest rank - "Still" (stones, etc.)
    The second higher - "plant" (plants, etc.)
    The third higher - "living" (beasts and animals, etc.)
    The fourth higher - "speaker" (this is the person who also has the ability to speak)

    And it will be explained below that each rank is a different "type" in creation...

    The reason that the claims of evolution are heresy is not because they do not make sense because they are not crazy people who invented it if it were so... no one would consider their claims...
    The problem lies in the fact that most of their claims are based on the fact that they claim that man is basically an animal and only has a superlative quality added to him which is the power of speech and wisdom and understanding and opinion...

    While according to the Holy Torah the opposite is true - it is written when God created man "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" which means that man is a divine creation that has no relation to an animal and as it is written "in the image of God created man" a photograph means a "photograph" man is Photo and reflection of the divine qualities in man there are good qualities of mercy and compassion and benevolence, etc. that these qualities are far from animals,
    (And although it is possible to find animals in which "part" of the good qualities belong, but a human being has the set of qualities that are a photocopy and reflection of the divine qualities),
    Therefore, man in essence is the handiwork of the Creator of the world who inflated in him the "soul" which is a part of the blessed God (and as it is written in the holy sages "Mann DaNafh Madiliah Nafah"... translation: He who inflates... from his part is a producer... that is - the soul of man is a part from God).
    And in contrast... the animal is of lesser rank because it only has an "animal soul" it does not have a "soul" (since as mentioned... a soul is a part of G-d) and therefore does not have the ability to speak which in its essence derives from the ability to distinguish by wisdom between it and the knowledge that their essence is from the power of the soul that creates Natan's world in man.

    Therefore, it is not appropriate to claim that man came from the animal, but rather the Creator of the world created in man both a "soul" (which yearns for spiritual life) and an "animal soul" (which yearns for physical life) and gave him the ability to choose through wisdom and knowledge to distinguish between good and evil so that man can choose In a good way, and thus he will be able to realize his destiny, especially in the world to come, by being able to "delight in the Lord and enjoy what He has called" (as the Holy Book says, "Mesillat Isharim")

    Secondly, evolution is only a certain "approach" and it is against Judaism for a simple reason because "Torah" is the language of instruction, that is, to instruct the many who knew the path they would follow... while the claims of evolution do not belong to be called "Torah" and certainly the reason its inventors called it that "Torah" is surely to instruct many in a certain way...and that is that if man is indeed an animal in his essence, it means that he will not have an obligation to the laws of the one who created him, and this is the root of the heresy that invents an approach and turns it into a "Torah" so that they do not feel an obligation to the Creator of the world, there is no more Atonement for this…

    The great apostasy lies in the fact that while Judaism is constantly engaged in the attitude of "heralds of God's embrace" that is, to look at creation and myself and to notice the greatness of the Creator of the world who created everything... and then the desire to observe his laws and commandments will arise in us, then evolution completely ignores all of this and observes the attitude that everything that happens in the world Everything from everything is just "through chance" that by chance man was created from animals... and by chance a world was created... and by chance animals were created... etc. when the main goal of this approach is to isolate all admiration from creation and not to attribute it to the Creator of the world at all and therefore they call this approach "Torah" and thus It serves every interest of lack of commitment to the Creator of the world...

    Finally, the holy sages already said, "God made man honest, and why did they ask for many accounts" - everyone should look at the honesty of the heart that the Creator of the world created within him and by this he will not be followed by the "inventors" of the many accounts of theories that will become "Torah" "H.V.

  2. Great article. Finally someone who speaks only about scientific issues and firmly refuses to discuss matters of faith!
    Full disclosure: I am a religious person but recognize the scientific correctness of evolution.

  3. Evolution is a fact. Nevertheless, the current theory is a bad theory. She does not explain much of the findings in the matter. In the future, in my opinion, a better theory will be developed for the findings that includes reference to the many indications that evolution is active and not just a choice.

  4. Natural selection, defined by Dov Henis:

    Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Period.
    Natural selection is energy temporarily trapped in a mass configuration. point.


    - All the energy of the universe was in the form of an inert mass, unity, a second particle about 14 billion years ago. All the grutons of the universe were then at zero distance from each other.
    - In order to create the unity, all the many groytons in the universe were required because the groyton is very small and therefore the inter-groyton force of attraction, the mass's gathering force, is very small.
    – The Big Bang was the beginning of the transformation of mass back into energy, into matter in motion.
    - Since the bang, the grotons have been released at a constant rate from the mass cluster formations in which they are stored. The pace is constant because they are small and weak.
    - Every mass configuration contains energy to stay in a mass configuration, otherwise the energy contained in it is trapped (destroyed) by another mass configuration because all mass configurations burn
    To devour, to imprison energy, because the universe is energetic, in motion, expanding, the clusters of galaxies move away from each other as the masses fuel their movement.
    - The process of natural selection for the preservation/restoration of the original-primary mass configuration of the groytons, the fundamental particles of the universe, is gravitation, the force of attraction in the universe.
    All the processes and formations in the universe are derivatives of this gravitational force, in the paths of the release of the Grotons and their regrouping for the restoration of unity and the restoration of the Big Bang
    And the restoration of the universe...

    And so on…

    point. Simple and clear.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

  5. Hello Daniel and welcome,

    I hear frustration in your words regarding the poor communication between the currents of our people and I have nothing but to agree with you.
    Gratuitous hatred and prejudices have nothing to do with establishing understanding and personal growth, but mainly fortifying a person in his position, and it would be good if he were with each side, he would learn a little more about his side he opposes, if only so that he can improve and understand what he opposes.
    This is also true for the secular public, which often errs in a disparaging and simplistic view of the public and Jewish thought, as well as of the observant public, which commits similar sins and comes with the arrogance of experts and learns fragments of explanations from so-called scientific rabbis who twist the words of scientific findings.

    Although bringing hearts together is desirable and welcome, the aforementioned column deals with the theory of evolution. Do you have thoughts, questions or comments on this topic?

    Best regards,

  6. As a religious person who believes that there is a Creator and that He is all-powerful and that He created the world, I will explain the story of Noah to you in a more in-depth view. When G-d said to Noah build me an ark the whole essence of the ark and building it was "so that they will see and be seen" maybe they will stop from their bad deeds, and really from the point of view of logic as a believer of God who is omnipotent he does not need an ark in order to save whoever he wants because he is omnipotent. What about Noah building an ark for 120 years, does it sound especially logical that it is not really big and he has helpers (his three sons) but surely the whole essence of the ark was for the people to stop their actions. And if so, the ark itself miraculously exists, all the animals enter, and there is room, and there are also three floors. If we pay attention to the Torah, it is written that G-d said to Noah "And you shall take for yourself of all the food that he eats" - the meaning of the word 'go', foods that are worthy of you and even though every animal has its own food after all "and you had 'and them' to eat". It is not because the whole essence of the ark was one great miracle and did not come except to bring back the wicked to repentance. (And in truth Noah was accused of not trying to bring the people back to repentance, which is why the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah there) calls the flood 'who Noah' means because of him the flood came). And in relation to the theory of evolution, how and when did we stop growing a tail, was it because our ancestors no longer wanted it? Or maybe because it was no longer used because of all the changes that took place in Africa as they say? This is nothing but nonsense since as Jews we have been circumcising since the beginning of time and we do not want a foreskin and it does not help us at all!!! It is impossible to change the reality of things by ourselves and there is a creator and he sets the rules of the game. What you see people with such and such eyes only reinforces the greatness of the Creator who in his mercy makes sure that the Chinese and their neighbors are poor because they come from the east where the sandstorms hurt the eyes or the Africans who have wide feet because they are without shoes It is very important to learn and get to know the other's opinion before judging his words!

  7. Peace
    I try to live as a Jew and study Torah
    And the whole thing about the disdain is terrible because it's a lie!! We (those who strive to follow the path of Rabbi Kook and the great believers)
    Asking probing and difficult questions and also sometimes disagreeing and in extreme cases even disagreeing but one thing I do that you don't do is really willing to hear both ways (yes yes I know the 2 cultures and worlds (also the scientific one)) and willing to hear answers to connect so we will see you do it (And no, stigmatization and communication does not count)!! Most of the things and arguments against Judaism stem from a lack of knowledge (no, learning from a professor of Judaism is not a rabbi (and some currents) {just a religious guy (even with a beard) doesn't count. There are criteria for a rabbi: measurements, Torah knowledge in all Torah subjects including faith and thought) because then it is external without really listening and also!! Talking to a guy on the bus doesn't count because it takes (at least an hour or two of self-discussion or sleeping on top) to digest the things and make it easy and reply,
    So good luck and may we get to not discuss the merits and hear each other and find out the truth,
    All the best and happiness!! 🙂

  8. This is how Bat Chava - a free and liberated woman - writes:
    "Saturday morning...the endless million dollar conversations about faith
    In God..and the essence of secularism after the loss of God
    And the understanding that secularism is the construction of a new based system
    On an alternative significant source - man
    Secularism is a very complex tower in itself, which had to be built with great effort. What really happened in modern times is that thousands of thinkers, poets, writers, scientists, politicians and ordinary people worked very hard to create a Godless story for the world. Only when this story reached a sufficient degree of completeness and stability could people abandon belief in God.
    As long as God was the only plausible source of meaning, there was no choice but to believe in Him. The heart of the secular revolution is the creation of an alternative source of meaning for the world - "man".

    And nowadays when a person has the real and right choice and he chooses to stick to the lies of faith and the lack of religion, what will we say and what will be said????

  9. Haim, I wonder if you have read all 667 responses to it that also discuss the topic of "faith". And on this subject, in the manner of the people of the Masora, I will require a sermon on the meaning and essence of "religion":
    What is the difference between "opinion" and "religion"? In total, one letter A. The name of the Lord is "Eye" the name of the most important secret organ that a person has. The main human organ to sense, understand and know the world, along with the other senses and of course - the intellect. A person whose eyes are removed walks around the world like a soma and his understanding of reality from A-D is defective and problematic. Displacing the Lord from "religion" will leave man with only "religion". Is it just a coincidence that our Abedkan scholars preach to us in the yeshiva houses and madrassas to believe "blind faith"? Is it for nothing that the believer is called a "complete believer" in the meaning of "gullible". Fati believes in everything (anything that will destroy his mind, of course. Everything). Just like the mitzvah in our holy Torah "and you said about the right the left and the left the right"...!!! That's right. Against reality, against the obvious, against logic and in favor of logic, in favor of absolute surprise, in favor of blind faith. From the time he was a baby in a Rabbi's house, his parents and educators plucked out the "eyes" of the orphan and raised him blind and prepared him to live in the world as a soma in the dark, his mind is flooded with superstitions, most of which are bland (in their taste) Many, too many of our people go around trying to spread the gospel of lies and words of vanity which they hold. Thus the obvious is described in the Holy Torah, about the stories of the sages, their sayings and their words which is clear, certainly there is no truth in the matter (did someone mention the "medicines of the sages from the Talmud or the medicine of the Rambam? Who is brave and will turn to these medical teachings today????) The skeptic answered with the magic word "faith".
    "The Torah has an explanation for everything, even things for which science still has no answer. You just have to believe in the ultimate truth and not just in explanations that sound logical but are partial." This is how the believer answers without understanding the absurdity of the matter, the blindness, the open and obvious stupidity of the man who sees, whose eyes are in his head, to the free man whose intellect and reason are not forced and enslaved to his faith, to the man who chose "opinion" over "religion".

  10. Haim, your last sentence sums up your entire response nicely in my eyes:
    "The Torah has an explanation for everything, even things for which science still has no answer. You just have to believe in the ultimate truth and not only in explanations that sound logical but are partial"
    You just have to believe, you say. and implements.

    But Haim, most of the visitors of this site and I in general are not interested in just believing in blind faith. We want to know and understand.
    Therefore, your beliefs in the Creator of the world, and that the Bible is no longer a book written by people, are of course your right, but these are your beliefs and nothing else. They have no explanatory value.

  11. There are many contradictions in the article that I am surprised that the commenters did not address them at all. The first one is about Adam and Eve whether they had the same genetic load or not. Whether or not the faith claims that God created Adam and Eve and from them came all human beings with all possible different genes and therefore the differences between human beings originate from creation and not necessarily evolution that created different types of human beings. For example, Adam and Eve carried all types of genes within them, and depending on the choice of name, some "turned on" and some remained off, thus creating different people with different characteristics, etc. It is a well-known fact today that genes that are turned off or on create different and different proteins and enzymes, which in turn create traits, vaccines, or weaknesses etc. that pass or not pass from generation to generation and everything is in the hands of God. Regarding Noah and the ark, who said there was a need for food... As far as I remember from this story, the instruction that Noah received was not a mention to manage all the animals, but only to group them, therefore the calculation of space, living needs and economy are not correct at all. For anyone who claims that how they established forty nights and days, the explanation is simple, even though it doesn't "make sense" to all the "scientists". God provided for them and provided for all their needs just as he provided for hundreds of thousands of Israelites in the desert not only for forty days but for forty years... The Torah has an explanation for everything, even for things that science still has no answer for. You only have to believe in the ultimate truth and not only in explanations that sound logical but are partial.

  12. Hello Amir
    I consciously dedicated a single sentence to it. This is because this is not the topic I wanted to cover in the article. The idea of ​​species emergence is a topic for an article in itself.

  13. You can't seem to sneak in a sentence like: if we take evolution and spread it over a relatively short period of time (say, hundreds to thousands of years), we will get small changes in the characteristics of the population, ... and in some cases even new species - and not give clear evidence that new species were created in short periods Those, who are a significant part of intelligent people who are really interested in learning and understanding the world, are already aware of evolution being a settled fact, but claim that new species did not really evolve but were created and changed through morphological changes.

  14. An argument like yours like "Hidden are the ways of God" is a general argument that can be given as an answer to anything. If we are dealing with hocus-pocus, this is the point where, for me, the scientific discussion stops.

  15. Regarding what you wrote: "There is no gravity, there is an almighty God who guides every object that falls in exactly the right path and does not deviate a millimeter to the right or left, etc."
    I do indeed believe this, and not only me, but this is the clear position of Judaism, and is explained in detail in many places. In the language of the Torah, this position is called "Private Providence", and when it was first voiced out loud by the Beshat, most of the Torah greats of the time (for the same reason you present) really disagreed about it, except that during the three hundred years that have passed since then, this position has been explained in many different ways, Until it was completely clarified that this was the original Sage position, and today, as far as I know, there is no observant Jew who does not believe in it.
    For more information on the subject, you are welcome to contact me, I will be happy to direct you to the sources.

  16. Israel,
    It looks like a formal wording, but different from what I know. Anyway, I quoted below a passage from Landau and Lipshitz regarding the second law that clarifies the matter.

    Regarding the question - in the eighth edition there are 21 questions, so the number of the question you are talking about is probably different or it has been deleted.

    Quote regarding the second law:
    Thus, if a closed system is at some instant in a non-equilibrium macroscopic state, the most probable consequence at later instants is a steady increase in the entropy of the system. This is the law of increase of entropy or second law of thermodynamics, discovered by R. Clausius (1865); its statistical explanation was given by L. Boltzmann in the 1870s.
    In speaking of the "most probable" consequence, we must remember that in reality the probability of transition to states of higher entropy is so enormous in comparison with that of any appreciable decrease in entropy that in practice the latter can never be observed in Nature. Ignoring decreases in entropy due to negligible fluctuation, we can therefore formulate the law of increase of entropy as follows: if at some instant the entropy of a closed system does not have its maximum value, then at subsequent instants the entropy will not decrease; it will increase or at least remain constant.”
    (L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics part 1 3rd ed., p. 29-30)

    This is of course the tip of the iceberg, and you can find more extensive discussions in the books I mentioned.

  17. a student

    It seems to me that in question (not a problem) 31 in the chapter (if we have the same wording) I would bring up the issue of FLUCTUATIONS.

    The example of the water cycle is indeed a beautiful example of spontaneous "positive" work. But if we take "work"
    In its classic definition: force multiplier on the way, it seems that in the way of nature the vase always falls from the table and breaks, never the other way around. We need someone to paste it and upload it back. Of course, in the article I could not go into all the details.

    Erez - you can find the non-final version including the two chapters at:

    Of course, much of what is said is the author's opinion only. The rebuttal test is in the paragraph in red letters that deals with the matter of addicts. (If you persevere and get there).

  18. Israel:
    In part of the article there is still a trace of the positive and the negative and in another part you wrote that there is no work at all without life.
    Let's leave the same wording, which I assume also basically only refers to positive work and which probably only entered the glory of the recommendation.
    What I am saying is that in any case there is work in both directions whether there is life or not, and in any case the negative work outweighs the positive - both in life and outside of it.
    I say this - although I'm sure you know this - only because you wrote otherwise.
    No matter how you define the positive direction - every cyclical phenomenon in nature must contain both negative work and positive work (important, for example, about the water cycle on Earth).

  19. Israel,
    I don't have the third edition, I have the eighth (I think there is even a ninth). In any case, even in the eighth edition there is the chapter you are talking about, but I skimmed around and couldn't find the section you quoted. The law is also formulated in this chapter in a formal way. Read it and see that it is not the wording you presented.

    By the way, if the field interests you, there are specific recommended books:
    F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics
    F. Reif, Statistical Physics (Berkeley Physics course-V 5)
    F. Mandl, Statistical Physics
    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics
    (Holiday and Resnik's book is of course excellent, but it is an introductory book and as such is limited in the depth of the material)

  20. Israel Shapira,

    The article on the "second law of psychodynamics" sounds original and fascinating, is it possible to read it?

  21. a student
    Third Edition, Chapter 25, ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS Right at the end, before the questions. The book also states how low the practical probability of the actual entropy decrease is, but does not provide any formulas. The last problem in the chapter, #30, deals with the entropy of a deck of cards.

    Michael - In the article you mentioned, the difference between "positive" work, such as raising an elevator to a height, and "negative" work, such as lowering it, is noted. The terms are mathematical, simply to give a vector direction to the work. In editing for some reason, they saw the B as the N and wrote "vital" instead of "positive". The intention was that the natural direction of things for elevators is to fall and not to rise. Although there is no obstacle to the rise by the first law of thermodynamics, because of the second it will always fall and not rise spontaneously.

    In the second, mathematical chapter (edited by Galileo but not published), an attempt is made to reach the probabilistic roots of the law, and to point out a possible connection between the second law and the state of the world from a social point of view through what I defined as the "second law of psychodynamics" - the increase of psychomechanical entropy in the world, which is A closed psychomechanical system.

  22. Michael,

    Yes, I read your words. I didn't quite understand the purpose of your example, so I elaborated. I described that you are trying to show that treatments related to other teachings in physics except thermodynamics should be applied.

    I understand that apparently when you said that you should be careful with the term "order", you meant that "order" does not only refer to spatial concepts. It's clear to me - I imagined to others as well. I already mentioned ( that using the term order is not the correct terminology. Usually the term is used to create an intuition.

  23. Israel,

    Which edition? I'm looking at the eighth edition and the page you mentioned talks about standing waves.

    In any case, this is not a formal version of the second law. Look for one in the book. And in general, the passage you quoted talks about the state of the S.M., not about a change that the system undergoes over time. In the SM state there are macroscopic fluctuations, which become smaller with the increase in the number of particles (in multi-particle systems these fluctuations are negligible). When it is written that if we wait long enough, even the least likely cases can occur (such as the creation of a local vacuum or the freezing of water, i.e. a decrease in the entropy of the system), it means infinite time - and this is not physical (or practical. These are not processes that occur in nature), but You said you already understood that before.

  24. student:
    I know all this and if you had read my words you would not have needed your response.
    Do you really know how to calculate the combinatorics of the number of possible states in all degrees of freedom?
    Do you know how to define the relationship between them?
    Obviously, as I mentioned, the system will eventually find itself with a higher probability in a reasonable state than in an improbable one.
    All I was trying to say is that looking at things in terms of "order" is largely an idealization of reality.

  25. Technion student.
    I already wrote to you in

    "You convinced me.

    Beyond a finite and not very large number of factors - a spontaneous order in the system cannot practically be created in a period of time on the order of the age of the universe. Certainly not in a system on the order of Avogadro's number."

    What I meant by: "I will also remind Israel, who said about the second law: "He does not claim that order cannot be created out of order. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."

    You can find in the book by: RESNICK AND HALLIDAY: PHYSICS page 558:


    Sorry for the crappy punctuation, it's a bit hard to write here.

    Hope that's what you meant. If so, I can find you the extensions.

  26. "For example - if you take water and oil and mix them well - you will increase the "disorder" right?
    And what will happen to the mixture when you leave it alone (in a place where there is gravity, like, for a while, in your house)?"

    We will define the moment of end of mixing as t=0 and that the entropy at this moment is 0. We will also assume that the system is isolated. From the second law we know that the entropy will increase up to a maximum value that it will receive in shm. It is clear that the system is not at zero at t=0 and therefore at t'>t the entropy must be greater than 0 (because it is known that the process is irreversible).

    The mixing does indeed increase the entropy of the translational degrees of freedom, but all the degrees of freedom of the system must be considered, for example those related to the interactions between the molecules - vibrations, rotations, electric potential, couplings of all kinds, degeneracy of states, etc.). As a simple example, when the water molecules are mixed with those of the oil it is not possible to form hydrogen bonds between them, while when they are in one phase it is possible. The possibility to form hydrogen bonds also allows the hydrogen to migrate, which increases the entropy.

  27. R. H.,

    You are talking about an open system and in my example (for Israel) I was talking about a closed system (since he was talking about the second law, and the second law talks about a closed system). The correction I mentioned to Israel's words ( is due to the misrepresentation of the second law in his response - that "order" can arise from "disorder" with low probability. The example with the cards is not related to thermodynamics, but even if it was related, it is not good, because statistical mechanics is not used on a system of 4 particles or 50 particles, but on orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number of particles. The number of particles in a system strongly affects its behavior, and this is one of the reasons statistical mechanics is useful. For example, in the simple system I described, we accept that the probability of returning to the initial state is practically zero.

    You are talking about open systems. In an open system, by investing work it is possible to reduce its entropy - and not necessarily with a small probability. I will point out that such a process is not called a natural process. The direction of natural processes is the direction of entropy growth - the direction of the arrow of time.

    Regarding the discussion about the creation of life - I suppose that the decrease in entropy as a result of the creation of life can be reconciled with the claim that the earth is not a closed system and that the environment did work. However, for me, personally, it is difficult to reconcile intuition with this statement, because the decrease in entropy due to the creation of a living system such as the human population is enormous and difficult to grasp. In practice, of course, life was created, so this move contributed to entropy in the universe. Of course, I am not familiar with the combination of statistical physics with evolution (if such exists) or the combinations of statistical physics with theories in astrophysics. It is possible that such combinations do manage to create an intuitive understanding.

    I will also remind Israel, who said about the second law: "He does not claim that order cannot be created out of order. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."
    I have not come across such a wording of the second law, and I would be happy if he could give me a reference to one (formal).

  28. Friends:
    Without getting involved in the debate - I just wanted to express my opinion on some questions that seem to me to be ignored.
    One is the one that came up in the sentence of the second law as quoted from Galileo by Israel Shapira (the old Galileo readers can read in the previous issue the first sentence on the same subject that Israel Shapira wrote with great grace - although I do not agree with his claims entirely).
    In my opinion, the second law of thermodynamics is really not a law and is simply a consequence of the laws of probability.

    The second thing is that there is nothing in life that acts contrary to the second law of thermodynamics (and Israel's claim in the previous sentence, as if only life creates work "against the law" is incorrect because they completely obey the law)

    The third thing is that one must be very careful with terminology: "order" is in the eye of the beholder and the high probabilities of disordered situations arise from the fact that we are usually not talking about exact situations but about groups of situations.
    Every exact situation (for example - every exact distribution that determines a position for every molecule in the room) has the same probability. The point is that the group of situations we call "disorder" is simply infinitely larger than the group of situations we call "order"

    The fourth thing is to be careful when you start talking about all the laws of nature in terms of thermodynamics.
    The second law of thermodynamics is true only for thermodynamics. When you want to expand its use to other areas, you have to base yourself on many definitions that I don't know if anyone bothered to define.
    For example - if you take water and oil and mix them well - you will increase the "disorder" right?
    And what will happen to the mixture when you leave it to its own devices (in a place where there is gravity, like, for a while, in your house)?
    Order will return!

  29. Sedon Technion,

    I think you didn't understand what I meant. All I wanted to show was that order can be created in a random system provided there is appropriate selection and we don't have to wait throughout the life of the universe as you say for chances that seem very small to materialize like the chance of creating a certain protein from a sequence of amino acids.

  30. Cedar Birch:
    Talking about the first living cell will always remain vague - just like talking about the first person.
    When did the creature stop being called a monkey and justify the nickname "man"?
    These are not so important questions.
    There is a sequence here and the definition is necessarily vague because on a sequence you can only name a finite number of points.

  31. Israel Shapira,

    If the self-replicating feature is a speed-determining step for you, then cell is already a pretty advanced event.
    An earlier step is autocatalytic RNA bands which can, as oil suggests, promote their own synthesis. According to the "RNA world" theory for the formation of life, a fairly widespread theory, these were apparently the first enzymes. Since they are not proteinaceous, they are called ribozymes ( ).

  32. R. H.,

    1. The selection factor you are talking about is a system - because it has to "know" how to move a molecule to one side and not allow it to return to the other side. The process you describe is not natural (in the system I described) and therefore for it to happen you have to invest work.
    If you look at this switch as a subsystem in the vessel system, you will see that its entropy increases at the expense of that of the gas: once it has moved a molecule to one side, it has to "remember" not to move it back - and this increases its number of states.

    2. The same factor that performs selection is also a system, and in the process of selection its entropy increases.

    3. In this example you see it clearly: if the letter matches it is kept. As a result, the computer's memory fills up - and this is a situation that is identified with an increase in entropy.

    I assume you know "Maxwell's Demon", but if not - I recommend reading it.

  33. Talking about the "first cell" would require the speaker to define what the necessary conditions are for identifying an object as a cell.
    Without doing so, the concept of "cell" remains vague and intuitive.

  34. Some speculations about the formation of the first living cell you can find in this article
    and in the links at the end.

    At the moment we still don't know how to create a living cell even by design, so it would be presumptuous to point out the way it was created in nature.
    We will probably never know for sure how the first cells really came into being but I guess in time we will know much better how they could have come into being.

  35. Israel,
    Of course, there is no answer to your question and there probably won't be, how was the first cell created.
    However, works examining the question of what could be the mechanism for the production of a replicating cell are also being done.
    See, for example, the works of Nobel laureate Shostak from MGH in Boston:

  36. Hello my father c
    The sword of natural selection kills living beings mercilessly, and although I don't have exact numbers regarding the number of species/traits that appear compared to those that disappear, the frequency of mutation is definitely known and it is much higher than the frequency of appearance of the traits, meaning that most of the new traits (and mainly referring to changes for the worse in traits) disappear.

    Regarding the analogy you gave about the screw factory, you are right that an unprofitable factory like you describe will go bankrupt very quickly, but what will happen if a multi-billionaire investor comes and invests in this factory huge amounts of money that will allow it to continue to exist for a long time? (As the sun has been bombarding the earth with energy for 4 billion years).

    First, I'm not enthusiastic about the terminology of "Creation of Creatures" this appearance is more scientifically accurate. Second, what is a soul? What is it made of? How was it created? how does it work Is there anything trying to research this and give real answers? Let's say she was created by a higher being. What is that entity? What is it made of? What is the source of her infinite powers? Where did it come from? Who created it? These are questions that no one seriously investigates, certainly not those who claim their existence.

  37. R.H.
    I didn't even get to that.
    The only question for me is how even a single cell was created that is capable of replicating itself. From there it's easier.
    It seems to me that crystals are capable of replicating themselves. We must ask Shechtman.

  38. Technion and Israel student,

    In your discussion of probabilities, you ignore the fact that evolution does progress with random mutations, but there is selection that is not random, and that is what makes all the difference.

    1) If you conduct your gas experiment with selection - after opening the door between the two parts of the tank, you will place a one-way valve instead of the door so that the gas molecules can pass to one side only and not return. You will see that after a reasonable time (depending on the speed of movement of the particles) all the gas molecules will be on the side One and you don't have to wait for the universe time.

    2) If you shuffle cards and pull one card each time, if it fits the sequence keep it aside, you will see that again in a short time from a random process you reach a sequence that is not random at all and mainly because of the selection.

    3) Write a computer program that randomly selects a letter. Each letter chosen is compared to a letter in the book "War and Peace". If it is in the right place it is kept and if it is not thrown away, you will see that in a short time the book War and Peace will be written to you out of a random process. This is the power of non-random selection.

  39. Friends:
    What are you arguing with Avi C about the second law of thermodynamics?
    Is it not clear to you that he has no idea what he is talking about?
    After all, according to the "logic" in his words, even the development of the snowflakes with their hexagonal and orderly structure contradicts this law.

  40. My father c.

    OK let's say you are right and evolution contradicts the second law. What is your explanation then? Do you have a better explanation? which will answer in a simple way (as evolution does) to questions like
    Why are animals extinct? Why are there degenerated organs? Why do children get cancer? How come there are genetic diseases? Where do new creatures that appear today come from? Is there a creation? If so where does it take place? how? Why are fossils arranged in layers from simple to complex? How is it that we see in the field and in laboratories the creation of spontaneous mutations + selection (since this is the essence of evolution)? How is it that in islands and remote areas you find endemic species (which are limited to a certain area)? Was there a specific health for each area? How do you explain that for dogs we have a documented evolution ranging from the wolf to the chihuahua versus the great dane? Isn't this macroevolution? Likewise in "civilized" plants from the mother of wheat to the wheat of today (note that man did not create them but only made selection)?

    Other than saying on a gut feeling that evolution is wrong, can you give convincing creationist explanations without twists and turns for all these questions? If so I would love to hear.

  41. Technion student
    I really wasn't wrong about you
    The opposite is true, it is clear to me that you control laws at one level or another from various laws that science has revealed to understand visible and measurable life.
    At the same time, your style shows that you are not belligerent and are ready to conceptually examine situations that are not clear to science or to man.
    I do not expect you to see intuitive spiritual mystical perception as a guide for you even though there are scientists who have learned to utilize this path to a higher leap in the field of science.

  42. Abi C,
    Don't be mistaken. My claims do not concern an external or superior force at all. I responded to claims that were incorrectly presented in the context of statistical thermodynamics.

    In any case, here is a television program called "Genesis" with the participation of Prof. Elam Gross in which he discusses with the host the subject of science and faith. I think all participants in this discussion will benefit from watching.

    "Still, a system can "suck" order from the environment, so that the total entropy of the system and the environment will increase, while in the system itself the entropy will decrease.
    which can explain evolution,”

    "Order" (incorrect terminology in general - the correct term to talk about is a number of states), is just a way of describing a system. It's not a physical parameter that you measure directly, so you can't say that order goes from one system to another. You can say that in a system consisting of two subsystems (for example, the Earth and the Sun), the entropy of one system can decrease and the other can increase, so that the entropy of the system increases or remains constant (in the case of natural processes, increases). But this already concerns my response to you ( which for some unknown reason was released only now, when I asked to do so.

  43. cedar
    Thank you, you opened my eyes to see the cloud of flies, even without a telescope I see that you lead them.
    "Laugh as much as you want, history will always laugh at you"

  44. Abi C,
    To the rabbi, I don't bother myself with those who have all the answers (they don't excel at listening and the rabbi also doesn't have any useful words from which to learn) but there was something that caught my attention in your style, so convinced, mocking, saying "it's not possible" and relying on "Common sense". I thought to myself that at the dawn of history voices like yours accompany the caravan of progress like a cloud of flies:
    "The earth is shaped like a sphere?! where are your eyes be reasonable"
    "what are you saying? We who revolve around the sun? When was the last time you looked at the sunset? Obviously the sun is moving!”
    "Small and invisible animals make us sick?! Tell the truth, have you been drinking again?"
    "How did you say? "Vaccination"? Will something from a sick person make me healthy? Do you listen to yourself sometimes?”
    "Every baby knows that a heavy machine cannot fly. Watch this stone fall. Such nonsense.."
    "There is no reason for a private person to want to own a computer, it is too big and there is nothing to do with it"
    "Solve the structure of the ribosome? Not a chance. Much smaller things we cannot solve"
    "There are no quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists!"

    Laugh all you want, history as usual will laugh at your expense.

  45. Abi C,
    To the rabbi, I don't bother myself with those who have all the answers (they don't excel at listening and the rabbi also doesn't have any useful words from which to learn) but there was something that caught my attention in your style, so convinced, mocking, saying "it's not possible" and relying on "Common sense". I thought to myself that at the dawn of history voices like yours accompany the caravan of progress like a cloud of flies:
    "The earth is shaped like a sphere?! where are your eyes be reasonable"
    "what are you saying? We who revolve around the sun? When was the last time you looked at the sunset? Obviously the sun is moving!”
    "Small and invisible animals make us sick?! Tell the truth, did you drink too much again?”
    "How did you say? "Vaccination"? Will something from a sick person make me healthy? Do you listen to yourself sometimes?”
    "Every baby knows that a heavy machine cannot fly. Watch this stone fall. Such nonsense.."
    "There is no reason for a private person to want to own a computer, it is too big and there is nothing to do with it"
    "Solve the structure of the ribosome? Not a chance. Much smaller things we cannot solve"
    "There are no quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists!"

    Laugh all you want, history as usual will laugh at your expense.

  46. Technion student.

    You convinced me.

    Beyond a finite and not very large number of factors - a spontaneous order in the system cannot practically be created in a period of time on the order of the age of the universe. Certainly not in a system on the order of Avogadro's number.

    Still, a system can "suck" order from the environment, so that the total entropy of the system and the environment will increase, while in the system itself the entropy will decrease.

    which can explain evolution,

  47. My father c.
    Not only Darwin but also Einstein repented.
    The fact that the two things have no connection to reality is not a bad thing, after all, to be a rabbi you don't have to be smart and what you say doesn't have to have a connection to reality. The main thing is that you don't believe in anything institutional.

  48. Israel
    I'm also not really well versed in the law beyond the fact that I relied on the senior astronomer in Britain, Fred Oyle
    I guess he's not just a fool who doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand.
    You know the story of the king's new clothes, so this is the parable with many scientific theories that come up until the boy comes and says that the king is naked.

  49. My father c.
    What you say sounds perfectly reasonable. I have read several books on the subject of evolution, but do not feel that I have enough knowledge about how the trick exactly works. I take the word of scientists on a subject I don't really understand.

    All I'm saying is that evolution does not contradict the second law. that's it.

    We will continue to read and learn.

  50. White Cedar If you take the nuke that was bombed inside the closed tunnel under Switzerland, it will feel in the system in an open system like the Earth being bombarded by solar radiation.
    What is a closed or open system? The whole universe is in one closed system whose parts influence each other, or there is some hole in the universe beyond which there is an open system. Are you science or fantasy?

  51. Technion student you 10 really understand the sophisticated meaning of science that wants to prove the impossible without an external force (currently or forever hidden and beyond the reach of science's measuring tools).

  52. Erez my friend
    The truth is there is empirical proof that has been tested by findings that for every creation of production, millions of creatures become extinct due to failure.
    My factory produces a million buckles a year if according to your statistics this factory was working it would have gone bankrupt before it started.
    Leave the snooker when there is an infinite force in the system (the human soul) is the one that creates reality.
    Without man, the world would not exist. Without his observation of nature, nature would not exist, and I certainly would not be interested in anyone.

  53. Israel
    When the complexity of man is so great, who knows how many billions of connections there are in the brain, how will this perfect order called man be created, all emotions, imaginations and such complex motor skills and such an amazing eye, and this can really be created out of the order that evolution claims?
    I thought that people of science also work a little with common sense beyond the desire to quantify everything in order not to fall on the path they follow in life.
    If the claim that the evolutionary process was made over millions or billions of years slowly and gradually then you will find the proof in the fossils of this gradual change.
    Even astrology is more science than evolution, a sick invention of scientists who don't even want to accept the fact that Darwin in his late days wrote that his theory was based on a number of misunderstandings in the Galapagos Islands

  54. Your response is not partial or informal enough, it is simply not related to mine:
    You gave a link to something I didn't ask for, and you tried to show (as far as I understood) that an event like the one I presented in the example with the gas is possible over a period of billions of years - which is not true.

    I don't know if the researchers I know will have answers about evolution in the context of thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics. Usually chemists and physicists don't understand biology, and professors of course don't like being asked questions they don't warm up to.

  55. Israel,
    The truth is you could have long ago. (I finished the degree, but I did not close it, so I am still defined as a student. I also still function as such, because I am carrying out a research project.)

    And no, Erez did not answer - see message above. And the example you presented still does not match what you tried to draw from it (as far as I understand).

    Regarding the amino acids - which are formed spontaneously and under what conditions? From the syntheses I remember for amino acids, the reactions to create them are not necessarily spontaneous. I have no idea about evolution, so I don't know what the argument is for the formation of amino acids in the universe - so I didn't respond to the subject of amino acids.

    In any case, you are now talking about probabilities related to the theory of evolution and the formation of cells - the treatment of a biological system in terms of statistical mechanics is infinitely more complex than the treatment of a gas system (all the more so in a pack of cards, where it is simply a probability), so it is not clear to me what you were trying to show in the example with the cards.

    If cell formation is the issue, it seems that your argument should have been from the beginning that there is a probability of cell formation despite the second law - it has nothing to do with the example you described with the cards - because that would actually show that the probability of cell formation does not exist, at least not in an isolated system. It can be argued (rightly), as we have argued, that the earth is not a closed system because it is influenced by the sun. Then my question is: how do you show that in a system that includes the sun and the earth the entropy increased over time? The increase in entropy as a result of processes in the sun should be greater than the decrease in entropy resulting from the formation of life - what is the indication for this? How do you compare entropy changes in a "living" system to those in nuclear processes?

  56. That's not what I asked for. I asked for a link to the wording (I should have stated: formal) of the second law that claims what Israel Shapira claimed.

    "We are not talking here about engineering and feasibility given reasonable limits, but about an engineering-impossible time (billions of years)."
    Did you not read my entire comment? The possibility you are talking about is not practical and therefore has no meaning. For example, even in the simple example I described with the gas - you don't have enough time in the universe for such an improbable event to happen. Mathematically, you are right - even a probability of 10E-30 is not zero, but physically - you are wrong.

  57. Technion student. (Well, when can we already call you a Technion graduate?).
    I think Erez has already answered you, and I have to fly to work.

    To the point: it is clear that the probability of the spontaneous creation of even one cell that replicates itself (a necessary condition for evolution) is zero. But that is not the argument. Amino acids are formed spontaneously, also more and more complex. And of which there is a (small, true) probability of spontaneous formation of a primary cell. This does not require spontaneous creation - and it is very possible that in the millions of compatible ones in the universe this did not happen. But the probability exists - despite the second law.

  58. Dear Technion student,

    You asked for a link to refer to the second law of thermodynamics as a probabilistic law and not a mandatory law (given infinite time resources). Please see the TED talk at this link:

    "It is obtained mathematically in statistical mechanics"
    "So that's it, this probability actually becomes zero for all practical purposes when you're dealing with multi-particle systems with several states of orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number"

    As for that second law, please note your (correct) words regarding it, the second law of thermodynamics derives from statistical mechanics, i.e. probabilistic, not deterministic. It provides an incredibly accurate prediction precisely because the probabilities of entropy decrease in a closed system tend to zero for any practical purpose. Ambitious but not equal to zero. We are not talking here about engineering and feasibility given reasonable limits, but about an engineering-impossible time (billions of years).

  59. Birch cedar, plaited to know big ones

    "What the sun produces in an hour, can be used for electricity consumption for an entire year. So there is still a lot of room for improvement in the field." This is what Nobel laureate Prof. Walter Cohen, laureate of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, says at the event on the occasion of receiving an honorary doctorate in Bar-Ilan in May 2009

  60. Abi G.,
    Following on from the words of Erez Garti, Avi Blizovsky and the (excellent) response of Israel Shapira, with which I agree, a small anecdotal detail about how the Earth is not a closed system but rather a system bombarded with enormous energy (and therefore is not a closed system to which the second law of thermodynamics refers) :

    The Earth is irradiated every year with solar energy with a power 6000 times the energy consumption of all mankind.
    Another way to say it is that the amount of solar energy that washes the earth in an hour and a half is enough to drive every car and machine in the world for a year!

  61. cedar,

    And how do you measure or calculate the entropy of a system that includes the sun and the earth, and show that the total entropy has increased?

  62. "He does not claim that order cannot arise from disorder. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."

    - I have not come across such a wording of the second law (can you link it?).
    In a process that does not include external intervention and occurs in an isolated (closed) system, entropy can be preserved or increase, but never decrease. This is obtained mathematically in statistical mechanics. Since, to calm the intuition, entropy is linked to the terms of order and disorder, you can never create "order" from "disorder" in such a system - a system will never pass from one macrostate to another so that the number of microstates corresponding to the most probable macrostate will decrease. We will say that the system is in the NMS when the entropy of the system has reached its maximum - otherwise it can be easily shown that this state has no practical chance of existing (all this for multi-particle systems).

    "6. Tap a full pack of 52 cards. You will see that there is a probability - small, but it exists - that a completely random mixing will arrange the whole package as new, and therefore a great order is created out of disorder."

    - So that's it, this probability practically becomes zero for all intents and purposes when you deal with multi-particle systems with several states of orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number.

    7. I realize that creating order out of disorder is only a matter of time and quantities of mixed systems."

    - You "forget" one thing: that a system of 52 particles (cards in your example) is not equivalent and is not a suitable example for representing the universe (or even for representing a system of gas in one cubic meter in the room where you are sitting). Are you talking about 52 cards? In this experiment for example:
    A closed and insulated vessel, divided into two parts, in one of which there is a gas outlet (ideal for the purpose). At some point, the partition is lifted and the gas spreads throughout the vessel.

    You can wait for the age of the universe and the situation where the gas is on one side of the vessel will not return.

  63. My father c.
    Making a common claim that is fundamentally wrong and tainted by a twisted interpretation of both the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, and I will explain.

    The definition of the second law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases with time. According to you, evolution is a factor of order, therefore it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Well first, evolution is the biggest messing factor I know, for every successful trait that appears there are a million unsuccessful traits, and for every living creature that succeeds there are a million creatures that failed and died. This is like islands of order in an ocean of chaos.

    Since it is likely that the above biological argument will not convince you, then I will give the thermodynamic argument:
    As mentioned, the second law of thermodynamics deals with closed systems and total entropy. The earth is not a closed system at all, it has been fed by energy from the sun for about 4 billion years, so we must (at least) introduce the sun into the system. I assume that there is no debate about the increase in entropy in the sun, therefore if we examine the total entropy in the complete system we will get a constant and constant increase. And with your permission I will add a small metaphor:

    Let's imagine you and I are playing snooker. I win and I say to you, "My father, you lost, so set the table" and you claim, "I can't. This will lower the entropy in the system, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics." Is this possible? of course not. Setting up the snooker table involves putting energy into the system. The entropy in the table itself may decrease, but the system, which now also includes your body that arranged the balls on the table, brought with it an investment of energy that came from the energy reserves in the body, the breakdown of sugars and ATP and an increase in entropy in the body which also entailed an increase in entropy in the entire system.


  64. My father c.

    The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution.

    He does not claim that order cannot arise from disorder. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists.

    Do not believe? Try the following:

    1. Take 4 diamond cards number 4,5,6,7

    2. Mix them up.

    3. Ask yourself: what is the chance that a random shuffle will arrange them in ascending order?

    4. Conduct the experiment 200 times.

    5. You will likely argue that one out of every 24 shufflings the cards will sort themselves out in ascending order, and thus we got order out of disorder.

    6. Tap a full pack of 52 cards. You will see that there is a probability - small, but it exists - that a completely random mixing will arrange the whole package as new, and therefore a great order is created out of disorder.

    7. You realize that creating order out of disorder is only a matter of time and quantities of mixed systems.

    8. We have 15 billion years and billions billions of planets. The question should therefore be: what is the probability that order will not be created out of disorder?

    9. A tornado will not create a Boeing. Amino acids, on the other hand, of which proteins are composed, are formed spontaneously in space all the time. Also in the lab.

    10. Beautiful hexagonal snowflakes of all shapes are formed spontaneously.

    11. Mistakes?

  65. As for Hoyle, that's why he's an astronomer and not a biologist. By the way, he was such a great astronomer that he refused to acknowledge the Big Bang. But to his credit, he lived and worked at a time when it was accepted that the universe was infinite and matter was created all the time - enough atomic nuclei per cubic meter per year to maintain the static universe.

    And of course, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The whole earth is an open system. It receives energy from the sun and therefore the creatures eat and manage to maintain order, something that would not happen without energy.
    But your response reinforces my opinion that if someone does not believe one set of scientific evidence (in this case you represent the supporters of astrology), neither do they believe other sets of scientific evidence such as global warming and certainly evolution which has passed all the tests for 160 years.

  66. The theory of evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics (it's a law not a theory) according to it
    In any closed system to the world, order precedes disorder.
    Like a glass that falls and shatters into pieces so they never bounce back and become a whole glass again.
    Therefore there is no possibility that life evolved from disorder to perfection from randomness to perfection.
    Astronomer Professor Fred Oyle, one of the UK's leading scientists, says, "The chance that developed life forms will develop randomly is like a tornado passing over a scrap yard and as a result of their flying a Boeing 747 will be created

  67. How does science explain the great gap between the stages of evolutionary development.
    No intermediate stages have been found in the fossils that can explain the gradual development from the cell to the human.
    There are too large jumps between stages, so it is unlikely that there is a transition from ape to man without many intermediate stages that will see the development of the human brain with its complex technical capabilities.

  68. Nir,

    I'm sorry your comment was not published. I hope this is just a technical glitch.
    For cases like this, you might want to save the response as a backup and if there is a problem send it again.

    "You put words in my mouth, which I pretend to say, and I don't !!."

    It is possible that I am interpreting your words incorrectly, and if this is the case I am ready to listen to a correction. However, considering that I am not the only one to whom you come with a similar claim, it is possible that this is due to your lack of clarity in the wording. If you want us to understand, please aim for us to understand.

    "It's just convenient for you to understand what you want"

    Nir, we started off well and then you started to screw up. What do you think is convenient for me?

    "Because (factual) science doesn't know everything, it doesn't see the full should not draw conclusions from a section of a picture but from the picture in its this issue it cannot answer."

    Definately not. According to your method, it was forbidden to receive any medical opinion, because doctors know even less than scientists.
    Science always has something left to discover, and the picture is not complete, but the fact that we do not understand everything from A to Z does not justify your conclusion that no conclusions should be drawn. Science is the best mechanism we have (in my opinion) for understanding physical reality and as such constitutes the most reliable basis for establishing conclusions, even in its partial form. Sometimes this partiality is enough to hint at what is right and wrong, what is desirable and what is harmful.

    "Regarding the subject of the definition of God:
    It was quite expected that you would avoid the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it."

    Look how fierce.
    You ask me to define what I don't believe and then you don't accept my answer either, accuse me of evasion and send me to study.
    You wanted to know what the God I don't believe in is and that's what I addressed. I don't believe in a rubber duck. I believe you got what you asked for, and if you want a better answer you'll have to attach a better question to it.

    "Let your ears hear what your hand writes, "the lawfulness of the universe" .. Who is the universe? Is there anyone like that? Please explain to me who are you talking about? "The laws of nature that are understood by us".... Who are the laws of nature? I asked you a definition of natural, so you write nature for me.. hahahaha, well then what is nature?"

    Hear my ears and you will not save her.
    Who is the universe? Who said it was someone? Maybe it's something?
    Who or what are the laws of nature and their origin, I have no answer. I don't have answers to many things, so what?
    Science is the human enterprise embracing history and the world that aims to get to the root of this question.
    Einstein once said that if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called "research".
    ("If we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be research")

    "You know, and I know, that reality did not exist at all (before the big bang), neither space nor time nor matter. The laws of physics as we know them were not born yet. And suddenly, out of nowhere, all the material appeared in the world, in a natural way?!?!”

    I don't know any of these. I know the theories on a popular level.
    And I'm guessing you don't either.

    What's more, the end of reality is probably not in the great contraction, but in an endless dispersion in space until a corpse. The meaning of the bang event is a one-time event that probably rules out a multi-time universe.

    Not only does it not deceive, maybe even confirms the assumption of multiple universes. I already gave the attached link during this discussion, and here it is again, for you.
    A short and fascinating lecture by Prof. Sean Carroll at TED about a possible explanation for the origin of the Big Bang. As mentioned, this is a scientific opinion that has not yet found its way to consensus, but is certainly thought-provoking (there is a Hebrew translation if you select below):
    (There is also a longer and more comprehensive version, but not necessarily better, in two parts:

    "The problem I have with people who rely on physics as the way to discover God (the rubber duck in your case) is that they are trying to see through physics what happened before physics was formed"

    Don't include me in any of these people you mention.
    I am not trying to use science for what is outside the boundaries of its jurisdiction.
    Not for nothing is physics separated from metaphysics.

  69. A few days ago I posted a comment that did not appear on the site.. Too bad.


    You want to withdraw from the discussion and move on to other things, nobody pulls a gun to your head

    You are once again repeating the words of your friends, and it's a shame because I understood the first time, maybe you just don't have anything more to add, so you don't need to force it.

    You put words in my mouth, which I pretend to say, and I don't !!.

    You claim that I am saying that the fact that science is perfected over the years is a disadvantage. So know that I'm not saying that, it's just convenient for you to understand what you want.

    What I'm saying, for the millionth time, is that because (factual) science doesn't know everything, it doesn't see the whole picture, and you as a person who claims to be intelligent should know that you shouldn't draw conclusions from a section of a picture but from the picture in its entirety, I'm not saying that because science sees a section of the picture He is not good, I say that on this issue he cannot answer.

    It seems to me that you are so in love with science and research that you kind of forget that we have not yet scratched the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the ice cube on the glacier.

    Regarding the subject of the definition of God:
    It was quite expected that you would avoid the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.

    Regarding the subject of the definition of "natural":
    Your quote:
    The "natural" that probably interests you, even though you didn't give enough information, is everything that is subject to the laws of the universe, that is, that obeys the laws of nature as they are understood by us, as opposed to "supernatural" which is not obliged to obey requirements such as gravity, repulsion of identical charges , the uncertainty principle and the like.

    Let your ears hear what your hand writes, "the lawfulness of the universe".. Who is the universe? Is there anyone like that? Please explain to me who are you talking about? "The laws of nature that are understood by us".... Who are the laws of nature? I asked you a definition of natural, so you write nature for me.. Hahahaha, well then what is nature?
    You write "as opposed to "supernatural" which does not comply with requirements such as gravity"
    If this is how you would please define the moment of the big bang for me as "natural" and not "supernatural", without getting confused please - the moment of the bang as a natural moment, if possible also a bonus minute before the bang would be nice.
    You know, and I know, that there was no reality at all, neither space nor time nor matter. The laws of physics as we know them were not born yet. And suddenly, out of nowhere, all the material appeared in the world, in a natural way?!?! I know there are those who claim that reality was concentrated in a singular point, there is no end to time... I will not go into the philosophical problems that this idea creates, but even in this version - there is no physics of today. What's more, the end of reality is probably not in the great contraction, but in an endless dispersion in space until a corpse. The meaning of the bang event is a one-time event that probably rules out a multi-time universe.
    So the problem I have with people who rely on physics as the way to discover God (the rubber duck in your case) is that they are trying to see through physics what happened before physics was formed. The chronological order of the events is: first a bang and then physics, so how is it possible to have a natural bang without modern physics and call it a natural moment???

    Hopefully this content will be published unlike my previous post.

  70. Nir,

    Unfortunately, I have to inform you that my interest in talking with you is diminishing and not because of the depth of your recent responses. It is not impossible that I will be forced to divert my time to more interesting challenges if you continue this. for your consideration.

    "What I wanted to say is that science always changes its approach and perception. And the difference between the articles only shows how easy it is for even the most senior scientists to make a mistake.
    The sad thing is that sometimes things are discovered years late, and in other cases they are not discovered at all, and people base claims of a lifetime on mistakes, a good example of this is what happened to Professor Shechtman. Which indicates that the combine culture that characterizes the human race has not escaped the top of the scientific community either (it is recommended to see Dov Elvaim's interview with Shechtman and hear his harsh words)."

    Science is not a sacred canon, it is a dynamic process (and even, look what a miracle, progresses in an evolutionary way where only the theories that fit the observations survive the test of time). It is evident that this dynamism, which is science's greatest strength, you recognize as a shortcoming. You are not the first and probably not the last to do this, probably because religion and science speak very different languages.
    In religion (and not only the religion of Moses and Israel) it is unthinkable that a scholar in a yeshiva would dare to find proof that there is a fundamental concept in the "Shulchan Aruch" or the Mishnah, while he has a sensational innovation in his hands. If he dares, he might even be denounced as insolent and not welcome in the yeshiva. In contrast, a scientist who undermines the foundations of a well-established scientific theory and succeeds in challenging it, will not only earn himself the status of a brilliant scientist, he will receive recognition, research budgets, invitations to speak and prizes. The process of researching science under its own foundations ensures that scientific theories are constantly being tested to reveal their deficiencies. Thus, over time only the most immune theories remain against these relentless attacks. Therefore, the unjustified (and premature, it should be added) joy at the discovery of an error in science, makes it clear that you do not understand that this process is essentially scientific and not an embarrassing failure.
    There is really no sacred theory. There are no sacred cows. There are at most "sacred cows for now", until something better comes along. One example of many is modern physics. The two major theories of physics in the 20th century are relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are enterprises of tremendous significance in their ability to explain to us the world in which we live. However, Elia and Kotz Ba, they are not compatible with each other, and the first task of the physicists today is to find the unifying theory (GUT - Grand Unifying Theory), which will include the advantages of both. Until we succeed in this, we will not be able to understand, for example, the first second of the Big Bang. What does this imply? that the two great teachings are necessarily flawed, because they do not encompass all knowledge and therefore must be corrected. So what? Does this mean that science changes its mind and that senior scientists are also sadly mistaken? nonsense. This means that it is the best that humanity has reached so far, and with a lot of work I hope that in our lifetime some of the mysteries will be solved.

    "I'm very interested in you defining for me this God that you don't believe in"

    My friends son has a rubber ducky that he likes to take a bath with.
    I don't believe it's God.

    "I would also like a definition of the word "natural".

    Like many things in everyday language, words have different meanings in different contexts.
    "Natural" can be non-synthetic, meaning a product whose chemical composition is not artificial.
    "Natural" may refer to a certain norm, in which what is within the norm is considered natural, while what is outside of it is considered abnormal.
    "Natural" may be a description of a required action in a given context, in the common saying that it is a natural action in such and such a situation.
    And so on and so forth.
    The "natural" that probably interests you, even though you didn't give enough information, is everything that is subject to the laws of the universe, that is, that obeys the laws of nature as they are understood by us, as opposed to "supernatural" which is not obliged to obey requirements such as gravity, repulsion of identical charges , the uncertainty principle and the like.

  71. to Nir
    Quote: "I'm not saying anything, I wrote what is written in the articles I linked."

    For some reason, you previously came to the strange conclusion that theoretically if science expands experimental knowledge beyond what Einstein knew, - there is a reason to disdain the knowledge that has already been accumulated. that Erez took the trouble to demonstrate to you) and we have already made progress.
    That's the whole idea in science: someone discovers something, someone else adds a layer that the previous one didn't discover and that's how we know more about the world.

    "Very well, that's exactly what I'm saying. Science is constantly changing, knowledge is increasing, and with that, knowledge is increasing, about how much knowledge is still missing."
    First of all, it's good that you agree to the fact that 'knowledge grows'..and again: what exactly are you trying to say? After all, the way of science is the way to conquer more and more knowledge, that's the whole idea. Knowledge does not start from scratch but cumulatively. In fact, the 'information that is still missing' actually emphasizes why science is so important. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need science.

    Maybe before expressing an opinion, you should go back to zero, and understand simply what science is in general:
    (Nice article from a site you already know..)

    And another reference to important things you said: for example:
    " understand.. we in this world can continue to invent medicines, technology, wars, peace, discover world laws, fly into space, inhabit other stars, etc.. but if it all ends one day, and science believes that it will all end (do you believe In science, isn't it?) It has no meaning, nothing came of it, because everything strives for nothingness and absence."

    Your words clarify precisely why there is so much religious opposition at times, to a dry reality that science describes... Suppose you yourself knew for sure (just know for some reason, period.) that 'everything is expected to end one day', and someone would tell you 'but listen: If everything is expected to end one day, then there is no meaning' I suppose you would say back to him: 'Brother, what do you want from me? The fact that there is no meaning neither raises nor lowers, if I - know - that 'everything is expected to end one day' - then everything is expected to end, period.'
    Think about it..

  72. Nir:
    Is this comment the fruit of your keyboard?

    If so - then I was not wrong.

    In fact, your words in the last response also prove this.

    Besides, your words regarding God are really funny.
    The vast majority of the more intelligent people have already reached a negative conclusion on the question of its existence, but you are, of course, smarter than all of them:,7340,L-3480323,00.html

    The funniest thing is that you ask us to define a God we don't believe in and you don't understand that what needs to be defined is actually a God we believe in (after all, the failure to define it is the classic evasion method of the rabbis).

    If you define God as high heels I will be the first to admit his existence.

    Give me the definition according to which you think he exists or it is impossible to know if he exists and I will tell you what I think about such a God.

    Actually, you know? I can't decide what is the funniest thing about you.
    Perhaps it is precisely the fact that you are trying to present the more successful points of power of science, such as the fact that it constantly improves its predictions (=renovates the theories) as something that harms its credibility.

    Sweet dreams.

  73. To Eric:

    I am not saying anything, I wrote what is written in the articles I linked.

    Have there been any changes since then? Very well, that's exactly what I'm saying, science is constantly changing, knowledge is growing, and with that knowledge is growing, about how much knowledge is still missing.
    I don't believe in the "theory of creation" of Genesis that you don't believe in.
    After you invest in studying "what the Jewish saying in relation to reality" says, I will address your religious imaginations.

    You may be confusing me with others, I do not despise science (in all its shades), on the contrary, I enjoy its fruits and appreciate it very much.
    Both you and I know that they will never crack the reality we are in, time travel, transition between dimensions (if it exists), the size of the universe, its exact age, black holes, wormholes. And not to mention questions like where did all the matter come into reality, what is the shape of the universe, where exactly does it expand, what preceded reality.
    In our generation, you won't get answers, and you know it, so what's the point of establishing a claim that God doesn't exist if you don't have something solid to base it on, that's why a person who advocates science (not a person of philosophy) must be an agnostic and not an atheist.


    Not only was I not wrong, but they helped me prove what I claimed. If you look at the context in which my words were said (to Camila), you will understand that what I wanted to say is that science always changes its approach and perception. And the difference between the articles only shows how easy it is for even the most senior scientists to make a mistake.
    The sad thing is that sometimes things are discovered years late, and in other cases they are not discovered at all, and people base claims of a lifetime on mistakes, a good example of this is what happened to Professor Shechtman. Which indicates that the combine culture that characterizes the human race has not escaped the top of the scientific community either (it is recommended to see Dov Elvaim's interview with Shechtman and hear his harsh words).

    2 questions for the three of you to finish (if it's not difficult):

    1. I am very interested, that you define for me this God that you do not believe in.

    2. I would also like a definition of the word "natural".

  74. Nir,

    This time my opinion is the opinion of Michael and Eric. You jumped in the head.
    It's okay and even honorable to admit a mistake. It is a shame that you will continue to dig deeper holes for yourself with idle insistence.

  75. Nir:
    Science is not wrong because it claims nothing.
    Scientists make mistakes sometimes and then others correct them.
    People like you who are not scientists - are much more wrong.
    You personally are probably one of the greatest experts I have met in the field of making mistakes.
    Your main mistake is the disdain for scientists and this is expressed, among other things, in your stupid claim that Camilla is not a researcher when she clearly is.
    A sane person makes sure ten times that he knows the facts before making a defamatory claim about others.
    You do this without any checking so it's no surprise that you got it wrong.
    It is not surprising, therefore, that the situation is similar in relation to your other claims.

    Eric is right.

  76. Nir
    I'm aware of the news and like everyone else I became aware of the new experiments.. It's really not related yet, to the smugness with which you express yourself..
    as in the sentence:
    "Then, the whole theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, .."
    There is no sense in such childish disdain.. Do you have any idea how many experiments use the equations of the theory of relativity? Do you have any idea of ​​its practical implications?
    The greatness of science lies in the expansion of existing theories. Just like when Einstein expanded the boundaries of physics it didn't tamper with Newton's equations, - things didn't start flying in the air on the contrary, the knowledge about what surrounds us increased... that's all.
    On the other hand, as time goes by, the creation 'theory' of the book of Genesis, for example, turns out to be complete nonsense to my dismay.

  77. Michael,

    Thanks a lot for the links, it's interesting and also reassuring to see that relativity is probably still in place (although it could also be quite exciting if it were the other way around, lots to discover).

    If I understand correctly (are there any physicists in the audience?), the theory of relativity treats the speed of light as an asymptote, meaning that it does not prohibit motion above the speed of light but prohibits motion exactly at the speed of light, while motion above the speed of light is theoretically possible.
    The theoretical particles that will travel above the speed of light are called tachyons, and although no one has yet seen one, there is a lot of theoretical research on what they would look like if they were found one day. One of the strange things about them is that they move later in time. odd..

    More about tachyons:

  78. Michael, you said it well, there are mistakes, that's also what I'm saying, science makes mistakes sometimes.

    The issue is not the speed of light yes or no, but that science is sometimes wrong.

  79. ^ Of course I meant sentences like:
    "Recently it was published that there is probably a speed higher than the speed of light, so all the theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, .."

  80. to Nir
    It is better to be silent and be considered a fool than to write a few words and prove it.
    Where do you get the courage to write such absolute things about things you don't understand, let alone about people you don't know..

  81. To Camila:

    First, you don't do any research, you read a little and are a little interested in science, at best you are registered on all the relevant websites in Israel and abroad and follow conferences and meetings of scientists, at worst you watch space programs on National Geographic. I'm pretty sure that the news about the "Higgs boson" won't come from you, and you're not exactly a chief scientist at SETI either, so my situation and situation are quite similar 🙂 , maybe I even have the advantage over you, I've been interested in science for years and still am, (also in philosophy) and I was only exposed to the Torah In recent years, so I also know Torah.
    So, if you feel like playing by the rules of the game, then first of all admit it, science knows nothing, science does not prove anything and science knows that everything it discovers is temporarily true. Example: It was recently published that there is probably a speed higher than the speed of light, so the whole theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, they also discovered that most of the cosmos is probably "dark matter" the numbers speak of over 90%. Just to explain if you don't know, "dark matter" is called by its name not because it is dark or mysterious but because we simply don't know anything about it.
    The conclusion is clear, you support a study that proves nothing, and just for the sake of good order I will emphasize that I also support this study, I am a passionate science supporter, I believe in medicine, technology, physics, chemistry, but I also understand in my mind that they do not prove anything. If gravity is a scientific theory then what are we left with.
    I know what you want to respond too - that science is so precise and so rational and the level of its standards is so high that for something to be called "truth" / "correct", it has to prove itself time and time again in the most important test which is the result test and not recognized Flood, Noah's ark and rainbow nonsense.
    If this is your response, firstly I agree with you and secondly I ask you to read the last two paragraphs from the beginning.
    What do I suggest? First of all leave science, science does not provide answers and never will, turn to philosophy and then we will talk..

    Regarding the miracle:
    According to your answer, I'm afraid you didn't understand the question...
    I asked you, "Assuming it's all true, do you think it's a miracle?" , unfortunately you avoided an answer (which should be short) and I did not receive an answer, but instead, I received a bad logical argument that such a thing is not admissible in a court of law, which did not prevent you later from putting the rabbi in jail. (It's not nice of you, just because he has a beard, like that without a fair trial).

    Regarding the subject of the meaning of your life:
    I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if there is no God, your life has no meaning, you can give your life as much meaning as you want, but realistically you are nothing. Not even the tiniest point in history. I'll explain to you, it's simple…
    According to science, the world we know was created 13.7 billion years ago.
    The entire world of science, without exception, believes that at some point in the future, reality will end. Some think that just as the big bang was, so will the "big contraction", and some think the opposite, that the galaxies and stars will simply move away from each other to infinity and everything will simply turn off / cool down, what is called thermal death.
    It follows that our world has no meaning, since reality strives for "nothing" and not "there is", meaning, this world has no meaning.
    Since everything, always, but always, takes on meaning only when we do another action following the previous action, and if there is no new action, the old one has no meaning. Example:
    A man plows a field, why does he plow a field? what is the meaning of this ? The meaning is found outside the act of plowing, in order to sow seed in the ground..
    And why does he want to sow seed? The meaning is outside the act of sowing, that is, for wheat to grow.
    And why does he want wheat? The meaning is found outside of wheat, that is, for baking bread.
    And why does he need bread? For him to have something to eat or something to sell..
    Now.. imagine a situation where a person sowed seeds in the ground, and that year it did not rain, and because of this the seeds in the ground did not grow, what actually happened? The act of sowing was meaningless... it was just... nothing came of it, he worked for nothing.
    You understand.. We in this world can continue to invent medicines, technology, wars, peace, discover world laws, fly into space, inhabit other stars, etc.. But if everything ends one day, and science believes that it will all end (you believe in science, don't you? ) It has no meaning, nothing came of it, because everything aspires to nothingness and nothingness.
    Another example:
    A man returns from abroad after two months away from home, and finds a nest of huge ants in the living room. He calls the exterminator, the exterminator tells him "I'll be at your place in two hours".
    The person sits on the sofa looking down on the ants working, running to bring food, building the nest and says in his heart, "Look at these ants, working, running, laboring diligently and all this for nothing, because soon the exterminator will come and everything will be over.."

    There is a famous play by Shakespeare (Towel') about a king who sums up his life, and he was able to articulate this matter there:
    a quote:

    "Tomorrow, and another tomorrow, and another tomorrow
    will slowly crawl like a turtle day by day
    to the last page of the all-time schedule;
    And all our yesterdays only lit a way,
    where fools went to devour dirt.
    Dim, dim already, short candle!
    Our lives are a passing shadow, a poor actor
    The bouncer for an hour on stage
    and evaporates:
    They are just the actions of a retard,
    a pile of frothy foam,
    without any sense. "

    Even though you wrote that you attribute any meaning to your life and even though you didn't give details of exactly what you mean, I'm more inclined to think that you're confusing meaning with pleasure.
    And regarding pleasure, I have something to say to you, and if you're honest, you'll agree with me: most of our lives we don't enjoy, we work, study, build the future, invest in relationships, make a living, raise children, deal with problems at home and at work.
    And in old age?? In old age we certainly don't enjoy ourselves, with all the sickness, and the pain, and if God forbid there is a problematic illness among us then at all... so I find it hard to believe that someone would hang the meaning of his life on physical pleasure. It is true that there are moments that are also enjoyed, but it is really not the majority of a person's life, and not even a few percent of his life.

    Regarding the following generations, you should know that:

    Your great-grandchildren will not even know your name, just as almost no human being knows the names of his four "great-grandfathers" and "great-grandmothers". And the funny (or sad) thing is that it turns out that they didn't die that long ago.. What to do is just not interesting.
    Check even with yourself..
    It follows that there will be no trace of you left in the world 80 years from now regardless of how old you are.

    In conclusion :
    Luckily for you there is God, and therefore despite your materialistic approach, your life also has meaning, not as much meaning as you give it, maybe because you pet animals on the street and help the elderly cross the road safely, but because when there is God, all our actions echo in infinity.

  82. Thank you Aaron for the link to the interview with Prof. Payne.
    As I told Nir several comments ago, the rabbi does not tend to watch/listen to long content and asks for the gist of things, but I started listening and found the interview worth listening to the end. That's why I find it interesting to refer to things and encourages the "scientific camp" in which I also identify myself to respond objectively to things and not automatically rule them out. I will try my best to answer my questions:

    Prof. Payne speaks with sense and coherence, yet in my opinion he makes some problematic assumptions and assertions in his harshness.

    My main criticism is that I find in these things a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam). The esteemed professor claims that there are two possibilities for the universe, a "closed universe" subject to the control of natural laws only (which is acceptable to atheists according to him) and an "open universe" which maintains something spiritual beyond natural legality.
    After that, the esteemed professor states at least three things which supposedly cannot be explained using the laws of nature alone: ​​order in the universe, the free will of man and the very existence of science. In his words, he was hanged by high and distinguished figures such as Einstein, Popek, Hume and Kant.
    Before we touch on the claim that these really cannot be possible through a natural explanation, let's assume that this is indeed the case.
    Let's also assume that they do exist (ie there is order, free will and science). It follows that there is something that cannot exist in the "closed universe", meaning, there is no closed universe. OK.
    But, and this is the main point of failure - who said there are only two alternatives? Even if there is no "closed universe" this does not prove that there is an "open universe". The definition of an "open universe" is not "a universe that is not closed" (the complementary group), but is defined as a universe with a spiritual entity. And maybe there are other possibilities that go beyond Prof. Payne's imagination. Hence his dichotomous stubbornness stems from ignorance or the inability to imagine alternatives. This is a false argument.

    This is enough to negate the entire thesis, but here are a few more mistakes:

    Prof. begins the interview with somewhat puzzling terminology in which he claims that the existence of God cannot be proven, but it can be proven that the world could not develop without him. It is not clear what the meaning of "developing" is, but if the meaning is that reality cannot exist without God, then he formulated a proof of God's existence. It is not possible to hold the rope at both ends and have both an apologetic view (which claims to prove the existence of God rationally) and not.

    Prof. Paine assumes that there is free will. Indeed, this is one of the most difficult problems in philosophy, if not the most difficult. Rambam raised his hands from her and not only him. When the esteemed professor says that "every sane person" feels that there is a will, he is of course right, but sanity is not a measure of the matter. Sanity is just the accepted norm and in a world full of lunatics madness was sanity. Therefore, it does not mean that most of us believe that we have free will to ensure that this is indeed the case.

    Regarding the legality at the base of nature, that is the laws of nature, I already wrote to Nir that these laws may be but one variation of infinite variants of parallel universes or alternatively that all laws may all derive from a single and necessary law which may be completely mathematical (for example something based on pi or e).
    These are speculations of course, but there is something in them to entertain the wonder of the lawfulness of our universe.

    Prof. Payne repeatedly says about various things that "it is impossible to explain", by which he does not mean "it is impossible to explain at the moment" (we mean temporary or practical ignorance) but that "it will never be explainable". For such an overwhelming argument I expect a stronger reasoning than the ones he gave and if he believes that he will be respectful and explain (and maybe he does in his new book).

    I will also note that the professor is very much in favor of the possibility that there is something beyond nature, something spiritual and not subject to the laws of nature, but he does not give any information about it. What is that something? What does he know about him? To say that he is "not subject to the laws of nature" is a definition on the path of negation. I would like to know what positive characteristics Prof. Paine has to give us to that essence beyond nature.

    Also, it should be noted that in this spiritual essence, so to speak, there is nothing that connects it with the Jewish God, so it could easily also be the Holy Trinity, the Greek pantheon of gods, Brahma, or the Lord. There is no great consolation for the rabbis in this.

    I wonder if that spiritual essence has some other legality of its own given. If so, then it can be considered simply as another set of laws which can be added to the laws of nature, and you, the spiritual being of Prof. Payne does exist, but is subject to the (extended) laws of nature, like the rest of us.

    Given all this, I think the things are thought-provoking (and for that, blessed) but not sensational.
    And with that I will finish.

  83. I wrote layman, not idiot, I meant that, meaning that his opinion is no more important than that of a mere person who has not studied physics. I did not invalidate the existence of the religious, of all religions, but that with these people their education (or the preaching they went through - those who converted) got the better of their minds.

  84. Father, thank you for your response. However, if possible a factual response to his arguments and not a condescending one (the layman is out of place)
    I assume that he has a very broad scientific view, since he has dealt with the subject and with other scientists. The attitude of someone who does not want to deal with it is closed, limiting and does not strive for the truth!
    You ignore the fact that you can see many, additional and senior scientists (professors, doctors) who are religious (are they also lay people?).

  85. What to do that he is in a negligible minority even among his fellow physicists? And besides, he deals in the field of laser physics, not in astrophysics or another field of physics that deals with millions of light years and billions of years in the past since the big bang. Therefore his opinion on the subject of God is the same for every layman.

  86. withering,

    Unless we continue with a "war of digs" on every sentence, which I am right to do if you allow it, I turn back to the essence. Below are my concise answers to a selection of your claims. Expansion notes at the bottom:

    Is enlightenment a right for every opinion?

    Are there illegitimate views?
    No, there are only illegitimate acts.

    Can an expression of opinion be illegitimate?
    Yes, but only in special cases stipulated by law, which do not include opposition to a scientific approach or method.

    Can expressing an opinion be unwanted?
    Yes, but this is subject to subjective judgment.

    Is expressing an anti-scientific opinion undesirable?
    depends on the context. On a content site like "Hidan" that allocates a discussion platform for raising opinions, every reasoned and interesting opinion is welcome.

    What is undesirable in a discussion forum for raising ideas?
    Verbal violence.

    In conclusion,
    Expressing anti-scientific opinions is legitimate and in the context of a discussion platform for raising ideas such as the talkback system of the "Hidan" site, is even desirable (or at least neutral). On the other hand, violent and offensive text, even if it is backed up with accurate content, is not desirable in this context.

    "It is implied from your words that intellectual enlightenment means giving a right to any opinion".

    In a liberal country, everyone has the right to hold any opinion they want.
    This also includes things that are difficult for the reasonable person to digest, such as: that evolution is a conspiracy of evil-seeking scientists, that God's voice is revealed at night and whispers that he is the messiah son of David, that Jews were not murdered in the extermination camps, or that it would be nice if someone reached out to the soul of a prime minister.
    This, as long as the opinion is kept in the heart of its owner.

    "If it is agreed that there are opinions (as well as actions and in general - behavior) that are illegitimate, either because they are not purely moral or whether they are accompanied by the potential to cause harm (for example, to steal a person's opinion through lies, to damage a person's good name by materially distorting his words to the extent Their exact opposite, etc.), then it is necessary to at least condemn them"

    It is obvious that your conclusions stem from an inadvertent exchange of concepts with different meanings, hence the disproportionate ethical extremism, in my eyes. There is a difference between "opinion" and "deed". Also, there is a difference between what is "illegitimate", "immoral" and "reprehensible".

    "opinion" and "deed":
    "Opinion" is something that is in the possession of the individual, between him and himself (or his God). Society, at least the one in which we live, has no say about it and there is no room for sanction or external intervention.
    An "action" (which you also refer to as "behavior") is a voluntary or involuntary action that may (but does not have to) arise from an "opinion". Since this is the interaction of the individual with those around him, this is where society's action becomes relevant through the means of law, morality, legitimacy and sanction.
    From this it follows,
    that it is "actions" that may be immoral or illegitimate, while "opinion" is not something that has moral or legitimate value. There is no point in discussing its legitimacy, since it is inherently legitimate in a liberal state.

    I am well aware that these opinions of mine, which take a person's thought out of the realm of moral judgment, will not be acceptable to everyone (this is, if you will, the recursive application of my words in which I exercise my right to believe whatever I choose). Judaism, for example, already decrees in the Ten Commandments the prohibition of the thought "Thou shalt not covet", while in Catholicism they have increased the practice and many are the sins of thought worthy of shame, and atonement for iniquities. It should not be surprising that my opinion does not agree with religious morality, because my approach is essentially secular and holds that society cannot (at least not with contemporary technology) penetrate the innermost parts of a person's soul, and therefore it is an impenetrable space, whereas those who worship God examine their kidneys and heart and believe that the soul is also visible. If you do believe that thoughts may also be immoral or illegitimate, I find it interesting that there is also a similarity here with your religious haters.

    "Illegitimate" and "deplorable":
    The company imposes various sanctions on actions that harm the desired texture in the eyes of the crowd and the sovereign. Heavy sanctions are imposed on an act that crosses the line of "not doing it", i.e., that is "not legitimate". On the other hand, actions that may be legitimate but undesirable, in the possession of "kosher but smelly", are given lighter sanctions such as "condemnation".
    From this it follows,
    that "legitimacy" is a boundary line that roughly and dichotomously divides all actions into permitted and prohibited, while "deserving of reproach" is a type of social sanction that can be imposed on both prohibited and permitted acts that are undesirable.

    With your advice, we grandfather the concept of legitimacy. In order for us to be sure that we are talking in the same language, I will point out that for our purposes "lies", "plagiarism" and "deliberate deception" are all undesirable, however, if they were not done in specific situations established by law, for example during testimony in court, when receiving something fraudulently or misleading a client , after all, this is an unwanted but legal act and therefore, unfortunately, also legitimate.

    Expressing opinions, in writing or by email, is a basic right in a democratic country and only in exceptional cases that are considered incitement to a crime, may be considered illegitimate.

    According to the above, there is no moral problem with a person denying the theory of evolution in his mind. Moreover, since it is highly unlikely that an anti-scientific opinion would be a criminal offense, any expression of such an opinion is also legitimate.

    If we agreed that the expression of such opinions is legitimate, we can still claim that these are undesirable actions worthy of reproach, and it seems to me that this is actually what you intended. Desirable and undesirable are a subjective matter, and what is desirable to someone may not be desirable to the unknown. Do we want anti-scientific views to be expressed? It depends on the context of course.

    When the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, Dr. Gabi Avital, denies and distorts accepted scientific theories, woe to the shame. He embarrasses himself, his office and all of us, and the Minister of Education did well to finally get rid of him.
    As you know, the discussion between us revolves around another and much less official context: the expression of anti-scientific opinions in the talkback system of the "Hidan" content site. The talkback system is essentially a discussion platform for users to raise their ideas according to the Web2.0 approach. This is where surfers share opinions. Therefore, precisely here, any reasoned and interesting opinion is indeed desirable, and if it is not interesting or acceptable to Man Dhu, he can simply ignore it and move on.

    What is not desirable in a discussion platform for raising ideas, like the talkback system of the "Yaden"?
    "Contents or links to talkbacks, which contain threatening, blatant, racist, or insulting nature, such as offend others, their privacy, are defamatory, contain pornographic material or are of a blatant sexual nature or may harm the public's feelings"
    (Taken from the "Terms of Use" page of the "Hidan" website).

  87. Yes, Michael! I was aiming for you. This is my conspiratorial head working overtime.

    The scope of your activity here is large. Roughly speaking, the time you spend on us is equivalent to at least a full-time job, and I'm sorry to hear that you're not getting paid. Really, in all honesty, I'm sorry because I'm on your side in your righteous struggle.
    and being you only One of the readers, at least one reader's time is wasted here; But in that you saved the time of other readers, your sacrifice was not in vain and all I have left is to thank you.
    In addition, during the months that I visit here, thanks to you, I became aware of a lot of good material that I also transferred to my NATO circulation. For example, just this morning I downloaded several versions of Betty Edwards's book - Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain (and only God knows when I will put myself in the thick of it, but I have already spread his message among my family members).

    Some address you as Michal or Mikael or just push you points and stars. I, like them, am also guilty of impatience. But if I decide to disrupt there, it is not out of a positive assessment of its subject. See from now on: if I am addressing someone here without mentioning their name, then it is you.

  88. Nir

    It is obvious that the meaning and significance of concepts such as 'explanation', 'understanding' and even telling the truth are very different between you and me. I adhere to the rules of the game of the scientific method according to which I carry out my research and make my discoveries about this world. I try to stick to the same rules even when I try to learn something about other things in my environment. The same lesson you referred to does not explain anything and does not teach anything according to the standards I see as a minimum requirement (not in terms of the content but in terms of the quality of rational thinking that is demonstrated in them). To know that these minimum standards are not met in the same lesson, it was enough to listen to the first five minutes (even though I watched twenty minutes as I mentioned earlier). What constitutes a serious explanation and consideration for you is simply not enough for me. Since the faith of Israel and the Jewish religion (especially in the "modern" version) is not very interesting to me, I will be content with those twenty minutes. If I decide one day that the topic does interest me, I promise to look at the other links you recommended. The only reason there is any reference to what Judaism has to say is when people (usually religious according to their testimony) bring the things as a relevant source regarding scientific issues. In such cases, the ignorance of the facts and the thinking failures of those commenters are easily revealed. I can tell you with full mouth and with great confidence that if religious people stop trying to sell their nonsense as if it has something to do with something scientific then people like M.R. And like me, we will not address the issue of religion at all in this context.

    Regarding the "miracle", I do not know how to explain everything in the world (this is a natural situation in scientific research, otherwise there would be no need to continue the research because everything was already clear and known) but at least it is clear to me that not knowing anything does not logically entail a certain arbitrary explanation (say for example that there is a flying piglet that runs the world). But there are some perplexities that do arise from the investigation, one is that you talk to the people who tell a story but do not present any qualified verification (for example from the attending physician). I don't know how such an investigation went, but in court it was not admissible. There are enough cases of crooks who performed "miracles" such as bringing back to life, curing cancer, healing paralyzed people in wheelchairs, but it turned out that no miracles happened there, but greed for money and lust for power and control, and people who cooperated with the crook. Another puzzlement that arises there is why the X-ray is free and not behind bars, because if he really knew that the vehicle was going to cause disaster for that person and did not do much more than he did to dissuade him from using the vehicle, then this is true criminal negligence. Maybe there will be someone who will argue in his defense that he did see the things but knew he couldn't do it, in that case, why was there any point in warning him in the first place? If there was any point in the warning, I believe he realized that his warning might affect the course of affairs and the expected results, and in such a case it is clear that he did not do everything in his power and as a result of this omission, people died in a terrible accident. This is criminal negligence and it's a shame they didn't prosecute him. As I wrote before, what you postulate is insufficient by the standards of scientific research. If you're fine with that, great, I won't bother you, nor will I send you to study things that I think have a basis in contrast to the things you send people to Kram. Science is available to everyone and I have no need to be a missionary of science as you are trying to be a missionary of religion (which is quite rude of you to do so on this site and shows exactly what your moral level is). If they ask me about science, I try to answer, and if they talk about nonsense that is clearly not scientific, I try to show the flaws in what is demonstrated by the same talker.

    Regarding section 2 in your response to M.R.
    It is quite sad to see that there are people who hang the meaning of their lives on religion. It is truly shocking when those same people believe that only their particular religion can provide real meaning. I thank you very much, but if in your opinion the true meaning of life can only be obtained through a religion with questionable morals, whose treatment of women, those with different tendencies and foreigners is cruel and contrary to the basic morality of sane people, then I immediately give up this meaning. It is unfortunate to see how low the self-confidence of certain religious people is to the point that they are unable to find support in their lives and they measure with crutches without taking responsibility for their lives. If you chose this kind of life, that's your right, but I pity all those babies that religion captivates and degrades.

  89. jubilee:
    I don't know who your comment is addressed to.
    If Eli - then I didn't really understand her.
    Nobody pays me for my time.
    I am one of the readers.
    Are you suggesting that my viewing the link wasted the readers' time?
    Are you saying that me trying to save them time watching crap is wasting their time?
    What exactly?

  90. I hope someone pays you for your time, then it's not really wasted. The time that is wasted is the readers', but we make this sacrifice out of choice.

  91. Nir:
    I decided to watch until the end and realized that nothing had changed.
    This time too my time was wasted.
    The only thing it did for me was to remind me of the song that children used to sing "I will fly and he... and Moishla Kangaroo..."
    And yes - he also talks about that stone (and to me - does not solve the problem).
    By the way, it is interesting that he did not pay attention at the end and says that "Blessed are you, Lord" does not mean "you" but "he" and thus gives the aspect "he" that nothing should be known about, an attribute (blessed).
    Oh well. After all, all this bickering is so pointless.

  92. Nir:
    Those who sent me to study Gemara were, as mentioned, Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Sarbarnik and they probably thought this was the way to convince me.
    They were wrong, obviously, that's clear, but you were also wrong, when you sent me to watch a lecture in which nothing was said for 20 minutes.

    So laugh as much as you want.

    Although you think you're laughing at me, but when you calm down from laughing, you might think a little and if that happens, you'll realize that you're actually laughing at Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Srebarnik.

    I guess they'll laugh too when they hear what you asked me to see.

    I don't know but if you don't have anything serious to write here instead of sending me to suffer through a boring lecture then you are clearly deceiving yourself.

    As for the meaning of life:
    Unlike your life, my life has real meaning.
    You think that meaning is given to something only by an external factor and therefore you lie to yourself as if there is such an external factor.
    The meaning that my life has is the one that I personally give it and since the meaning that we determine is the only meaning that there is, the one whose life has no meaning is actually you.

  93. Michael Shalom

    1. It sounds very strange to me that they sent you to study Gemara, what does it have to do with Gemara?!?! Gemara is a protocol of discussions and commentaries on the Mishnah, which is supposed to give rise to Halacha (that is, how the commandments are supposed to look).

    It's even more strange to me that as a person who gives the impression of being intelligent (according to your writing) it took half a year!!!!! Realizing that you are in the wrong course - hahahaha, believe me great entertainment 🙂

    Next, ask me, - the "courses" you need are: "Faith" and "Inner Torah" (this is not Kabbalah, nor Zohar).

    2. I have a serious problem with your last sentence: "pure waste of time",
    - Since you are an avowed atheist with a materialistic approach (I assume), you should be aware that in other words you are saying: "There is no meaning to my life, never was and never will be, and in 100 years from now no one will remember my name including my great-grandchildren" You don't have any meaning, you can be calm, you don't waste any time, if anything the other way around, if the right religion is the only thing that can give you meaning and not wasting time.

    good evening.

  94. Nir:
    While I was in the army, I met Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Sarbarnik, who received an open door there to convey people's opinions.
    After I was not convinced by their words, they suggested that I go study Gemara with a certain person from Bnei Brak for a few months.
    For six months I wasted three evenings a week on Rick.
    My whole ultra-Orthodox life sends me to study all kinds of things and I'm always aware that it's a pure waste of time.
    There is a limit to every trick.

  95. For Michael, Kamila and in general:

    Last week, I explained for two hours to some ultra-Orthodox that the bang theory makes sense and is accepted by almost the entire world of science. The gentleman cross-examined me with good and correct questions and I added that mathematics is learned from a mathematician, and engineering is learned from an engineer and sewing is learned from a tailor. Three for learning the basics, even just the general idea, this will also indicate seriousness from my point of view, I even promised him that I would be ready to print material for him and bring it to his mouth. Needless to say, in the end he gave up while saying that it is a waste of time and it gives him nothing, and science is wrong and will always be wrong as it has been wrong in the past.
    A week passed, and God arranged for me to stand in front of the other side, in front of you, and was bombarded with questions about my point of view, and the logical problems I was presenting. , 3 people responded to the lesson I uploaded, all three didn't see it at the end, one was honest enough to say that he saw a few minutes (Erez) one tells me that she saw 20 minutes and asks me a question that he starts talking about at minute 14:30 (it's called "the rounding of corners ”, Kamila) and one is not willing to waste time on a lecture but uploads homework for me with 3 links that I will read (Michael).
    So I say to you like this: the wrongdoer in Momo is wrong! There is no difference between you and the ultra-Orthodox, you base your entire view "on what Judaism says", on what you learned in Torah lessons at elementary school and reading the simple verses of Genesis as they learned from the evolution through the opening song in the program "Hiyo Hiyo".

    I am here and now offering you an offer, and I am making it precise to save your precious time, do you want to know what the faith of Israel says on a philosophical level based on the scriptures?? Once and for all to know who or what we are praying to?? What do we believe? Who is our God? And I repeat again, this is all based on the scriptures - so that you don't say this rabbi invents a religion that is not Judaism.
    For those who are interested and have the leisure and the objectivity to listen, I recommend listening again to the lesson I posted (even though it is part of a whole course of 16 lessons and entering in the middle requires a lot of intelligence to understand the type of person who is lecturing and the topic), patience in life is an important thing because the subject of the lesson It comes in gradually and although it looks like it is stepping in place it is constantly moving forward and building another floor and another floor. You will understand the low importance of the beginning of the lesson (that you did not connect) at the end (for example: like a National Geographic program that is dedicated to finding intelligent extraterrestrial life but opens the first 10 minutes to explain what the big bang is in order to get background for the continuation, the time limit causes a lack of accurate information due to not expanding the topic And reducing it to 10 minutes, the smart viewer knows that in order to get more accurate information about the bang, he needs to watch a program that deals with the bang and not an introduction to another topic).
    In addition, it is mandatory, mandatory, mandatory, again, for those who want to know what the faith of Israel says, it is to study in depth Rabbi Kook's article "Yusorim from soups", it is not enough to read it, but to study it in depth (if there is a requirement, I can attach links to a short series of lessons on the subject).
    Here is a link to the article "Agonizing from broths" - Rabbi Kook.

    I can say with full mouth and with great confidence that if and when you do this minimum (and it really is a minimum) 2 things will happen:
    1. You will no longer have any questions about what the faith of Israel is in the depth of things (which is intended for serious people with philosophical thinking and not for Aunt Frida from intelligence).
    2. Even if you don't support the move, you won't be able to contradict it - more than that, if you contradict it, I'm ready to change my mind like I do in every area of ​​my life.

    In another matter:


    I want your opinion on the matter - is it a miracle for you?? : , on the assumption that everything happened as filmed and that Channel 10 did a real investigation and did not receive an instruction from Nohi Dankner or anyone.. Your reference "proper" to the filmed

    Have a good week and happy holidays.

  96. Nir:
    Right. I didn't watch until the end. I broke down after about 20 minutes.
    There is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend on a lecture that I feel I am not getting anything out of.

    If he ever gives a lecture about "how he came to his strange decision" I will be ready to listen to it (up to a certain limit - if I see that his considerations are illogical I will stop watching that too).
    In general, the trend is usually the opposite and there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and education level and faith.
    You are welcome to read the following links:,7340,L-3480323,00.html

  97. To Camila:

    You would have been spared the entire scroll you wrote if you had simply behaved thoroughly and not hastily and finished the lesson, I'm sure you wouldn't have had a single question from what you asked me, if you don't have time, that's fine, just don't tell us about your homework.

    Regarding the fine sense of humor: I don't know about you, but the fine things that I know, are created slowly, from food to wine and continue with connections between people and feelings in general.
    If you were expecting Ketorza's rants about Moroccans and Poles, I'm sorry to be the one holding a pin and bursting your imaginary comic bubble over your head.

    A little bit of flight, what are they asking of you??? 🙂

  98. Michael Rothschild:

    Your very question about the stone indicates that you did not listen to the lesson in the link until the end and I doubt if even until the middle, the rabbi there presents the approach of Judaism in a very deep, expanded way, with quotes from the sources (as he always does [ you can also download the source file in a pdf file if you desires it as in all his lessons]), if you are really looking for the position of Judaism, you have the opportunity to do so now and all this in a pleasant and simple everyday language.

    Your quote:
    "In my eyes, the lecturer in the link you gave is indeed a nice and smart person who, in his very existence, illustrates the enormous waste that religion causes when it causes intelligent people to engage in nonsense and believe in it."

    This is one way of seeing things, a second way is to ask yourself the following question: How does a person who comes from a completely atheistic culture immigrate to Israel, obtains 3 academic degrees (sociology, arts, and something else, I don't remember) repents, studies dozens of Gemara books, Halacha, Breslav, Kook, Mishniyot, Torah, Midrashim, Maharal, Rambam, Ramban Chassidut and more, in addition to learning Hebrew he also learns Aramaic, in between it is enough to read almost every philosophy book published (in one of the lessons he testifies that he has the The largest library of "heresy" books in Israel, and he is ready for the competition - I believe him) is up to date with everything that happens in science (and in science classes he implores students and internet viewers to test him for his level of accuracy), don't you ask yourself, wait... if the man This one grew a beard, it could be me too... maybe to give him a chance, maybe after all they are right or at least not wrong (because after all it always ends in philosophy)
    I can testify for myself that I have seen hundreds of his lessons, and I have never been able to contradict him, there are things I did not agree with his approach (mostly in philosophy) but he never gave wrong information. Unlike many rabbis (unfortunately for the majority) who circle corners, scatter from topic to topic in their lectures, and rather talk to an aunt from a room or a fence who doesn't know too much about the difference between a star and a galaxy) that's why I left them a long time ago.
    And since I am in love with him, I will add that I met him not long ago (in Jerusalem) and asked him if he would like to come and give a lesson here in the central area, that I can arrange for some people to come, he replied happily, when I asked him how it was going financially, he told me that as far as he was concerned, he was late And he doesn't own a car, if they come to take him it shouldn't cost anything. I wish for you and me. No financial interest.

    Birch cedar:

    I would be very happy if you read my words about the rabbi that I wrote to Michael, I am sure that if you give him a chance (until the end) you will have no more questions about the position of Judaism (whether you agree or not), even though I am a little "sinful" here that I am introducing you to lesson number 16 in the series without you getting the whole "movement", and without learning some of the basics of Rabbi Kook, such as his famous article "Agonizing from broths". Anyway, I promise you it won't be a waste of your valuable time.

    As for Baruch Spinoza, I really do not adopt his approach. And it is even very far from what I believe in.
    Since I am not a person of writing, and writing of very deep ideas on such a complicated subject as faith, I will once again refer you to the above lesson and there you will receive a clear answer to what my intention was (at least partially).

    A final question (addressed in general to anyone who does not believe):

    This God you don't believe in, I would be happy if you could describe him to me, what exactly do you not believe in. (Please if you could focus only on what you don't believe and not what you do believe).

    have a nice week.

  99. Nir,
    When you say: "And this is exactly the meaning of idolatry - I and the Creator are strangers, in Judaism it is exactly the opposite, I and the Creator are one - Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one [Ehad from the word Ekhodot]), do you mean that you are part of the same concept that you call 'Creator ', because if you were exactly the same, absolute identity, then there is a problem - because both your friend and the Creator are the same, and the Christian priest and the Creator are the same, and the pig and the Creator are the same, and the stone in the yard and the Creator are the same and also a grain from the same stone And the Creator are the same thing and so on and so forth, and to summarize then everything, small or big, whole or partial, is the same thing. There are some problems here: if everything you can think of is the same as the Creator, then there is no one Creator, there are infinite creators, are you okay with that? Another problem is that although all the members of this group are the same, how are they still different? Therefore, I assume you meant to say that you are a part/component of the concept you call 'Creator', and thus everything else in the world, is also a part of the same concept. If that's what you meant, then it's really puzzling, because then the identity is between the world and that concept, and here several other problems arise, such as: if there is identity between things, then why do we even need the concept? After all, this is just duplicity, there is the world (which is what it is even without calling it by other and unnecessary names) and there is a clear and proven way to learn something about this world and that is the scientific way (and as evidence the technology that is based on this knowledge). Another problem regarding this identity between the world and the concept of a creator is the fact that, nevertheless, the Jewish religion claims in the same breath that this identity does not actually exist and certainly did not exist in the past before the creation stories. So decide, either there is identity and then it is impossible to claim in the same breath that the things are not the same, or there is no identity and then at least be decent and give up your claim as if the identity exists (the other option is of course that you give up the laws of logic and then there is no problem at all but if you choose this option then I wish Have a good day and I'll turn to other things because I have no interest in talking to crazy people.

    You wrote: "What is a miracle? Doesn't the fact that the statistics came out in our favor mean something." – Is this a miracle for you? The occurrence of an event whose probability seems incredibly low? Is winning the lottery a miracle? Not yet? Will a double lottery win already be considered a miracle? Can you name a certain threshold of probability beyond which we can say that a miracle has occurred? Or maybe it is enough if the Rebbe said?

    So I started watching the video (since I was a child I make sure to do my homework) and yes, it's just another religious one full of basic mistakes. I listened to your advice and listened only to the voice, I ignored the beard and the cap, and see it's a miracle, you can't miss the fact that he is religious who teaches a religious lesson full of holes and errors in everything related to the facts we know about this world. Being Russian, I noticed by the accent, I did not find the excellent sense of humor (I admit that I stopped listening after about twenty minutes, after all, I don't have much time to waste. The superlatives you gave him intrigued me, so I searched a bit and this is what I found (I did not check the truth of the things):

    Graduated from the University of Nationalism in Kishinev, master's degree

    In XNUMX he immigrated to Israel and studied at the 'Beit-El' yeshiva for about ten years

    PhD in Sociology and Teaching at Tel Aviv Art University
    For about ten years he has been teaching at the Meir Institute, initially in the department for Russian speakers and then in the Israeli department in the Faith class.

    He also teaches at 'Beit Orot', the 'Quarte Midrash' and more

    Sorry, I was not impressed, mainly based on his knowledge of the facts (on subjects not related to religion) and according to his way of thinking as expressed during the lesson. If that's what you'd call a first-class philosopher, then I conclude that we're probably not sitting in the same hall.

  100. Nir,

    I am also happy for the opportunity to talk and get to know another perspective.
    As for the conversation between us being "friendly, serious and not cynical", this is my starting point for this kind of conversation, and it can be said that this exhausts my approach in the discussion I am having with the surfer "Kamila Last" on top of this page.

    As for your interpretation of God,
    I find it different in your last comment than the one that preceded it when you talked about finitude versus infinity, but if this is your intention, so be it. Am I to understand from this that you accept Baruch Spinoza's pantheism approach, and create an identity between the universe and God, in a way that every detail in reality is a detail from the divine essence? If so, then many identify this with heresy and correation of atheism.

    The argument that our very existence here as intelligent beings affects the universe being hospitable to the existence of life, out of the multitude of alternative universes that could exist, is called the anthropic argument. There are different uses that can be made of this argument, and even different interpretations of the very argument itself. One of the claims arising from the anthropic argument holds that since only intelligent beings can give their opinion on the universe in which they live, inhospitable habitats simply would not allow observation of them. So that there is no wonder that we live in a universe that allows the formation of intelligent life and the supposedly miraculous state of affairs in the universe.

    As for the link you provided,
    I listened to him for a few minutes and then stopped. As a rule, I don't usually watch links to long lectures that are sent to me. This is not due to laziness or, God forbid, disdain, this is the order of the hour in our time, which is characterized by a flood of information on the one hand and a lack of time on the other. I would appreciate it if you could summarize the main points you wanted to convey from Rabbi Fairman.

    More on pantheism:

    More about the anthropic principle (in English):

  101. Nir:
    In my opinion, the lecturer in the link you gave is indeed a nice and smart person who, in his very existence, illustrates the enormous waste that religion causes when it causes intelligent people to engage in nonsense and believe in it.
    By the way - in relation to the question about the stone - I don't know why people don't simply answer that an omnipotent being - omnipotent and one of his abilities is to stop being omnipotent and one of the ways to stop being omnipotent is to bet such a stone.

    Birch cedar and my father:
    Regarding Erez Livna's response to my father - I agree with the claim that science does not need the assumption that there is no God, but I must point out that in general - this is a good assumption - not as an axiom from which conclusions can be drawn - but in terms of creating the motivation for research, since God is simply the God of gaps (and it appears Prominently from the words of the rabbi in the link) and the belief in its existence loosens the hands of those looking for natural explanations.

    This is somewhat related to the fact that I disagree with Erez in relation to aesthetics and ethics (also in relation to politics, but this has never interested me and therefore I have no written material that I can point to in this regard).
    The connection to the god of the gaps is in the idea of ​​the decision to exclude certain things from the field of science (an idea that is somewhat similar to the idea of ​​the god of the gaps) instead of trying to treat them within the framework of science and see what happens.
    I definitely think that science has something to say in these areas and to clarify my intention - I refer you, regarding aesthetics - to this article:

    And regarding morality, to this article and the comments I wrote after it:

  102. Could it be that science itself is a religion, sometimes it is difficult to understand the fanaticism of some of the commenters, indeed God is not part of the game and is supernatural that some people believe is natural, what does that bother.

    I've read the hundreds of comments here and I'm not convinced that science has solved the question of origin and it's all guesses and theories based on the situation today (in Hebrew it's called faith) and I'm convinced that the scientists here are fanatics in their faith and have a hard time with different opinions just like those religious people who don't get along with those scientists.

    There is no doubt that if Prof. Shechtman, winner of the Nobel Prize, had been with one of the scientists here, he would have been banned to this day.

  103. Avi,

    With great respect, I will disagree with the validity of your words, when you said: "Scientists are trying to understand how the world works on the reasonable assumption that there is no God." I do not believe this to be the case. We do not need such an assumption in order to carry out science as such.

    It tells of a witty meeting between the French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace and Napoleon. Napoleon pointed out to him that in his thick treatise on the calculation of the movement of the planets in the solar system, the name of God is not mentioned even once. To this Laplace replied to him with wonderful fierceness, "I didn't need this hypothesis".
    My opinion is the opinion of Lapels. We do not need the hypothesis of God's existence to perform our calculations, nor do we need the hypothesis of his non-existence to perform them.

    The assumption of the non-existence of a supernatural force goes beyond the scope of science (as well as matters in the field of ethics, aesthetics and politics), since science by its very definition deals with the natural, while divine power, by its very definition, is supernatural. However, while science can remain indifferent to the question of the existence of God, it can certainly debate (and in most cases decide) religious interpretations that claim different arguments about our world such as the nature of things, their beginnings and their aftermath.

    Moreover, such an assumption weakens the validity of science, if we rely on the principle of Ockham's razor (which holds that the validity of a theory is inversely proportional to the number of assumptions it derives) because the assumption that God does not exist is an assumption for everything, like the assumption that God does exist.

    We know many science and math giants believed in some kind of higher power.
    As long as they did not need the intervention of this force in their field of expertise, I do not see this as a flaw in their contribution to humanity.

    More on the principle of "Ockham's razor" (I'm sure you know it, father, it's for those who are interested in the extension):

  104. Father, you are absolutely right!!

    Therefore, so that you listen to yourself, and watch the lesson, then you will know the man and not guess him.

    Will check later.. 🙂

  105. They say a good sense of humor, but as you know, a sense of humor is not a substitute for real scientific knowledge and it may not bring back repentance from the line, but a pan is a pan, and its whole purpose is to prove that there is a God while the scientists try to understand how the world works under the reasonable assumption that there is not God.

  106. Birch cedar

    A little late, but that's also something..

    First of all I'm glad I was able to make you laugh with the mullet, believe me I laughed too writing that 🙂

    And beyond that, I'm happy that the conversation is being conducted in a friendly and serious manner and not cynical.

    Now to the point:

    After years of debates with religious and secular people when I stand on both sides of the matras I can say with a full mouth that debates about "does God exist or not" is a matter of attitude.

    Example: A person is terminally ill with zero chance of recovery, turns to the Creator of the world for the first time in his life and tells him "If I get well, I am ready to repent completely before you" - let's say and the person is saved, he goes to the doctor, and the doctor tells him "What happened to you is a rare thing , cell x talked to cell y, photosynthesis took place (humorously yes) and that's why you were saved, these things are rare, but sometimes they happen", an hour after that he goes to the rabbi and the rabbi tells him "God heard your prayer, it's a miracle!! ".
    This is where the dog is buried, because it is impossible to determine whether it is a miracle or a statistic because it is the same thing. The question is - did something happen here anyway?? Now imagine that you know such a story intimately.
    I know, in another variation, my sister is named after my mother's grandmother, after during my mother's pregnancy she never stopped dreaming about her and demanding that the girl be named after her. Years after my sister was born we found out by chance that my sister shares the exact same!!! Same date of birth as the same grandmother only 100 years difference. A case?! It could be.. but it could also be the Creator's way of talking to us, just like that through life, you just have to look and not dismiss prejudices.

    If you compared me to Descartes, it means either you misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself correctly or both.
    Descartes said that if there is a thought in him, it means that God planted it there, which means that Descartes distinguished between God and himself (and this is precisely the meaning of idolatry - I and the Creator are strangers, in Judaism it is precisely the opposite. one of the singular language]), and I'm not talking at all about the logical fallacy in Descartes's case.
    I say that I myself am the manifestation of God in the world. Everything is the revelation of God in the world, God is everything on the one hand and on the other hand he is not and that is why there is freedom of choice.... Complicated?? I don't really have a good example:
    Once upon a time (according to the bang theory) everything was in one point, and everything was one, all matter in reality was concentrated in one point, but at the moment of the bang, the matter went from a state of concentration in one point with certain characteristics to a completely different state with other characteristics. And I very much agree with what you say that the world today is one of the options out of countless options parallel to the world, the question is whether those options give birth to stars, laws and the end of life or give birth to death and absence. I know that the news is smooth in this matter, in any case it connects to the way in which I opened the words of "What is a miracle?" Doesn't the fact that the statistics came out in our favor mean something?

    "Can a creator create a stone that he cannot lift? ” - I strongly recommend you to watch Rabbi Reuven Fairman's class - on this very topic. In a framed article I will point out that I know what you are thinking, 'another rabbi full of basic mistakes who will try to brainwash me', I will only respond - if you ignore the beard and the cap you will not know at all that he is a rabbi, the man is educated, has 3 academic degrees, a university lecturer, a philosopher From the first class in Israel, a Russian, with an accent and a keen sense of homer. No more "repentant" rabbi from the ranks as you know.

    Happy holiday !

  107. Joel:
    I've given up on you and I won't argue with you anymore because I don't see you as a worthy friend.
    In my opinion, you don't understand because you don't want to understand, but at least we agree that there's no point in arguing.

  108. Michael
    If you insist, then please.

    "One option
    (1) Mr. Almoni punched Mrs. Plamoni, she fell to the ground, continued to hit her and did what he wanted.

    (2) Mr. Almuni did not hit Mrs. Palamoni but showed her the butcher's knife he brought with him and indicated that if she did not submit to him he would hurt her. Mrs. Flamoni barked, fearing for her life and Mr. Anonymous did what he wanted.

    (3) It is rape.”

    See element number two in the definition of rape in this case: threat, Mr. Rothschild, threat.
    And what is written next? "It's rape." This is not a reading comprehension problem. This is already a reading problem.

    Yes, below are other examples of opportunism.
    If you don't understand the difference between submission to a dangerous threat and opportunism, there is indeed a problem.

    Like I said: embarrassing, and not for the first time.

    Your claim at the end, regarding the party that according to you saved the country, to justify political opportunism is simply pathetic. Even they, Mapai/Merach and Likud, never claimed this - but you do. They clearly and explicitly preferred one thing to another; Who spoke about saving the country in this context? Where did you get it from? The leading parties included the ultra-orthodox in their coalition to enable them to rule more easily against their main competitors.

    And a small note: being a pedagogue and an editor is ethically flawed.

  109. Eric,

    The bad insult of "Rabbi Zamir" is well known to me and unfortunately there are many buyers of his nonsense, including people I know personally. I think it is important to denounce the things as nonsense and invite those who want to hear to get a clearer perspective.
    On the other hand, I see no point in entering into a dialogue, and certainly not an angry dialogue, with those who "have no real interest in dialogue". It is unnecessary and unfortunate when the intelligent chooses to descend to the level of the fool for no good reason. Moreover, it has already been said that "to be angry is to punish yourself for the stupidity of others".
    The exception to this in my view is when it is a public discussion with wide exposure. So the answer is not really aimed at the interlocutor but at the viewers/listeners/readers. Whoever takes on the considerable responsibility of representing a camp\public\ideology\Torah, should be very knowledgeable, very eloquent and also sound and calm in his conduct. Otherwise he will embarrass himself and the public in whose name he speaks.

    I have great respect for Roy Cezana, whom I know personally.
    The breadth of his knowledge and his talent for writing are exceptional and his contribution to making science accessible to the general public deserves all praise.

  110. cedar

    You wrote: "The exchange between us revolved around the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and how one should behave towards those who are not sufficiently legitimate. This is not a discussion that deals with me and you but with the gap between two approaches, and as such, it is certainly relevant to our case how a website, company, country will be conducted according to the (in)tolerance codes you propose."

    I have already answered the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and I do not feel the need to expand. On the (general) manner in which one should act in my opinion who is not ready to play by the rules, I actually hinted quite thickly in previous comments, but I refused and I still refuse to say how I would act if I had the power. I did say and I also showed what I think should be done in the face of such conduct, when the tools at my disposal are the tools available to every other commenter on this website, readable - correcting mistakes and setting things straight at the beginning, and condemning becomes more and more severe when it turns out that it is not just a person who is ignorant or Difficulty understanding. This way of responding is, in my opinion, infinitely more interesting than what site administrators and editors should or should not do, because I prefer "community policing" to be carried out by all responders for whom the rules of the game, including fairness, are important. I can understand your desire to go deeper in this direction also on a philosophical level, but it is less interesting to me, as I have already mentioned several times. As a pragmatist, the direction you are heading is futile. In subjects that are not completely scientific, I live in peace with solutions that even if they are not perfect in all cases, they are useful and achieve their purpose. You don't like it? your right I'm sure there are many places that would be happy to discuss this topic.

    You wrote: "Kant in the famous categorical order proposed a simple method for examining the morality of actions. What would a world look like in which everyone behaved this way and would you like to live in such a world?"

    I already answered you with my statement that I would always prefer commenters like M.R. For example, even if their style is sometimes blunt (and generally sweeping according to what I've read so far - rightly so) the content of their words is invaluable for those who want to receive accurate and rational information, in any field and on any topic it touches on. Surely I would prefer commenters like him over all those who invent their own rules of the game even if they wrap their dirty wares with politeness and nice words. So yes, I am certainly willing to live in a world where the people who play by the rules condemn those who don't, I would also be happy to have the authority to act against those people in exceptional cases (just as the police have the authority to act against criminals for example) of course while trying to maintain a balance between the will To preserve basic rights (such as freedom of speech) and between the need to protect the company when these basic values ​​are abused to the point of harming other individuals in that company. Of course, this automatically means that I accept these rules, which means that I may encounter the last Camila + one who will be especially dogged towards me if I insist on not playing by the rules of the game that I mentioned in the previous comments. It's not just that I humbly accept it, I'm really interested in it, in fact peer review before publishing articles is an excellent way to get such feedback, sometimes it's cruel, sometimes it's not even justified (it happens from time to time), but usually it just improves The science I do, it reveals blind spots and flaws in the way of thinking. If my article is published with a gross error (not because of knowledge that was lacking at the time but because of negligence in the scientific work) that article will be a stain for me, the size of which is proportional to the importance of the newspaper in which it was published.

    You wrote: "Without further clarification from you, I am left to assume that through your apparent intellectual enlightenment, a thought police will emerge that is better placed in the Middle Ages or dark regimes. So ironic, when this comes up in the name of a spokeswoman in the name of progress."

    It comes from your fevered mind. It is implied from your words that intellectual enlightenment means giving a right to any opinion. A. This contradicts your previous agreement in principle regarding my definition of what things are legitimate and what are not. B. If it is agreed that there are opinions (as well as actions and in general - behavior) that are illegitimate, either because they are purely immoral or whether there is the potential to cause harm (for example, to steal a person's opinion through lies, to damage a person's good name by materially distorting his words to the point of reversing them Literally, etc.), then it is necessary to at least condemn them. They should be strongly condemned when it is not a one-time act done in good faith. If we don't do this we will soon find ourselves surrounded by immoral people who use the rules of the game to their advantage while they are not obligated to the significant respect of obeying them. Sound familiar to you? A few more years of such "enlightenment" and we are lost. We are lost in the meaning of life within the rules of the game thanks to which and within which science works. Notice what you did, you invented a scarecrow and attacked it. Are you really ready to accept any form of expression? What would you do, for example, against someone who claims that you have no right to exist and will try to harm you, your home, your children and claim that he is doing it for your benefit? What will you do after that person persists in expressing his opinions even after your repeated attempts to politely explain to him that he is wrong? What will you do when that person accumulates over time a group of fans who now express themselves in the same way, all based on lies and distortion of reality? Will you wait until they do real deeds before you take action to condemn that person? Would it not be correct to condemn that person near the beginning of his words, when his illegitimate positions were clearly presented? I purposely present an extreme scenario in many of the comments on this site, to understand if there is a situation where you too would agree that it is necessary to defend against illegitimate opinions. Note, if there are illegitimate opinions that you believe should be acted against, then you are in favor of a thought police whose place is better in the Middle Ages or dark regimes, so think carefully before you answer and ask yourself on that occasion why you wrote me this sentence.

    I don't understand what your confusion is about the concept of "rules of the game" and what is the difference between them and a game. When talking about the democratic rules of the game, do you mean the table game "monopoly democracy"? Is this another scarecrow you made? Laws/rules of the game is a central concept in the branching of this discussion, therefore it will not be surprising that it is used several times. It was as if you objected to the fact that the concept of mutation or natural selection was often used in the discussion of evolution. To me, this concept is full of meaning, unlike you, I believe that most readers understand very well what I meant, I also think that the intelligent reader who does not know the concept itself from widespread usage elsewhere, can understand its meaning from the context of the other things I wrote. If you did not understand, neither its content nor its relevance to the discussion, then it is a misunderstanding that lies with you and not with me, and perhaps it would have been more correct on your part to try to understand the same concept through direct and simple clarification questions instead of creating a stupid scarecrow. Ask yourself why you didn't.

    In contrast to "normal" games in which you can enact any set of rules and play within them, in the "game" of trying to understand and say something meaningful about the phenomena we experience in our world, and especially when this understanding is confirmed by deriving appropriate technology, I do not know the rules of the game Others besides the scientific method even come close to allowing such a level of understanding. By virtue of the fact that this site has been improved for scientific topics, the rules of the game are defined by its very being. The rules are even stated from time to time by several writers and commenters who deal with science on a daily basis and know something about these rules. You are again trying to bring the discussion back to the apparent legitimacy of opinions and arguments that are not legitimate even in your eyes (are you retracting your previous agreement of the definition I defined?). Obviously, those who play by other game rules will not want to easily abandon their game rules, so what? A person can claim for the rest of his life that aliens abducted him for a month and abused him and removed his tissues, etc., but if there is no evidence of this and even if there is evidence that contradicts his story, then it doesn't really matter to me how convinced that person is that his story actually happened. It just doesn't add any real knowledge to me about this world (except maybe about the nature of human hallucinations and even that is questionable). If such a person tries to bring these opinions here, they are clearly not in line with the prerequisites of the discussion on the issues that this site claims to represent (even if there are no explicit and detailed definitions for this on the main page of the site). There is no way to bridge the approaches because the meaning of "expanding" the other approaches is the acceptance of arguments that are not rational, that are not supported by facts, that rely on lies or logical errors, etc. Maybe for you it's fine, but I don't think this is the intention of the site administrators (ask them, I really don't know for sure) and I also don't think it's the desire of the readers of this site. In fact, I think it is likely that most of the readers here, certainly those who are interested in science, are actually interested in holding a discussion as close as possible to the scientific framework. For this reason, for example, many commenters use valid logical arguments, rely on facts, mention familiar theories. Of course, in the absence of in-depth professional knowledge (including me, of course) and in the absence of the ability to actually conduct experiments and test hypotheses scientifically, the discussion cannot take place within the strict framework of the scientific method, but there is no doubt that the orientation is in this direction. Science is not a democracy. Finding an "equal valley" means compromising on fundamental fundamentals of the rules of the game (such as being based on valid logical arguments or on real facts), honestly, I don't see how such a compromise helps anyone even if it might bring hearts together in your opinion (I don't think so). If the scientific method is difficult for you (it clearly does not provide answers to all questions) you may always go to any other website that would be happy to discuss, under different rules of the game, alien invasion of the earth, amulets and spells for finding spouses and why Judaism is the only correct religion. No one is stopping you, but why on earth do you want these kinds of discussions to take place here? Maybe ask the other readers if this is what they want? Not that it should affect what the site administrators will actually do (because that is their right), but you might be surprised to find out that the vast majority of readers here are actually not interested in the kind of discussion culture you suggest. Why do you assume they think like you?

    6. You wrote: "Know that this is a double-edged sword, and in your attempts to expose others, you are also exposed. Your responses indicate your character, your temperament, the breadth of your heart and the breadth of your horizons."

    As mentioned, I am subject to the same rules of the game. I have no problem being "stabbed" in the same way if I behave in a way that is not legitimate (were valid logical arguments, tried and true facts or famous oil. By the way, I don't really understand why you present these rules of the game as if they were some delusional whim of one Camilla).

    You wrote: "It should not be surprising that you don't want to associate all of this with your real name, which you choose to humble and separate from your words, so that it will not be tainted by revelations of this kind... As for the principle of respect and the apparent lack of connection between your anonymity and your blatant style, or that in your words you are condescending, or that you do not understand the aforementioned principle, or Both together."

    The only respect in the context of the quality of things in the framework of data game rules is the very ability to say sensible things while maintaining those rules. The person's name, profession, age, gender, religion has nothing to do with the quality of his words in the context of discussions on scientific issues. Even a simple worker or a manicurist will be appreciated in my eyes as long as they manage to contribute an interesting statement that does not deviate from the rules of the game. M.R. I appreciate not because of his name but because of the content of his comments and articles, and as proof of this, I didn't bother to check if he really exists in reality under that name. The use of the real name may indeed constitute a serious burden for other reasons unrelated to the quality of the content. I don't know why it is so important for you to confuse the two things. Since more than once I had the opportunity to talk at length with Amots Zahavi about the principle of respect, you can rest assured that I understand him well and if you have any questions on the subject I will be happy to answer you to the best of my ability.

    7. You wrote: "What is going on here is not science but the market." Who shouts louder at whom.
    To teach others science is what you are asking for, but do you remember yourself?"

    If you managed to completely miss everything related to the content in the exchange of comments here I have nothing to say to you. Not only do you choose to focus on style and make it more important than the content of things, but it seems that in your eyes style is the appearance of everything. In my opinion, I already explained at excessive length why I think differently and that's enough for me.

  111. People literally come here to misrepresent and lie.
    There were times when it was quite an epidemic but blatant reactions curbed it in the end and right now it's just a trickle.
    A lie is not only saying something that you know is not true, but also presenting something that you don't know as something that you know with confidence.
    It is not difficult to find out when a person is lying but there are those who are not ready to do so.
    They prefer to fight the one who exposes the lies instead of the liars.
    Of course, in their righteous behavior they encourage the lie, but apparently Christianity is more important to them.
    If they really believed what they were saying, they wouldn't try to whitewash the face of those who expose the lies (after all, they didn't come to lie either and there is no need to preach morals to them and condescend to them) but they don't really believe it and that's why they do act like that.

  112. Erez

    I am sure that like me there are some others who think like you that the way is in any case:- (even when Man Dhu blatantly comes to distort and lie) - that "there is no need to convince him. At most, it is possible to give the appearance of a matter-of-fact place to the refuting things and then dismiss it with cool disregard."
    In a previous response, I at least mentionedRoey Tsezana as one example that the blatant emotions can be spared..

    The point is that in your words: "I don't think that any of the speakers in the discussion created under this article, came to "Yaden" with the aim of spreading propaganda, misrepresenting or lying with malicious intent and deception" there is a certain degree of naivety. Of course, this does not concern how one should respond to the matter, but there are certainly people who feel a patronizing need to 'instill' their orthodox way of thinking, using cheap rhetorical manipulations and nothing else.
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but we live in a country of people like Zamir Cohen who have no real understanding of the issues they are talking about, and many other 'good students' like him who have no real interest in dialogue... and some of them regularly bother to respond here and elsewhere to every column that It seems to them.
    An example of demagoguery:
    If you really look at the chain of reactions between Roy and the troll on duty, you will find that apart from an attempt to scatter gravel, there was no real attempt at dialogue, it seems that Roy's reactions were aimed at this elegantly. (Happily for you, not too bluntly, although assertively...).

  113. Eric,

    I don't know if you've been following the exchange between me and Camila from the beginning (in fact, it started about 5 months ago on the "Davidson Online" website). In order to get the most out of the things, you should read them in the context in which they were said. This is true, for example, regarding the reference to the "rules of the game" that came up extensively during the conversation.

    The discussion between me and Kamila is a principled discussion that divides the "science camp" (meaning us, who see eye to eye regarding what is science and what is evolution) on something that, at least for me, is much more than "style". If it was limited to Camila, "Yaden" or even just the debates for and against evolution, I probably wouldn't give my opinion on it.
    But it does not end there.
    My interlocutor explains in long and reasoned responses when it is possible and appropriate to hurt others. It might be worth taking a step back and getting a perspective on what we're talking about here, since it's a topic that has implications far beyond a meta-scientific conversation about accepting the theory of evolution. You can take these reasons for intolerance and use them to justify a long series of injustices against the different other in various other contexts.

    Harming others in the name of intellectual superiority has nothing to do with science. As someone who devoted a significant part of his adult life to scientific work, I see this as a desecration of a beautiful human institution dedicated to the progress and well-being of the human race, in behavior that in my eyes is no less than bullying.

    You are of course right about the righteous tone.
    However, in discussions about ethics, that is, what is the right way to behave, when everyone brings their own justice to the table, it is difficult to avoid a "righteous tone".

    There will certainly be those who will see this as amazing innocence on my part, but I do not think that any of the speakers in the discussion created under this article, came to "Yaden" with the aim of spreading propaganda, misrepresenting or lying with malicious intent and deception. Beyond the fact that it sounds conspiratorial to the point of improbability, it is also simply ineffective, one can think how many souls can be "corrupted" here. I do believe that there are those who believe in wrong information or in an interpretation of that knowledge, and that sometimes they are very persistent about their mistake since it is in line with their set of beliefs.
    But it doesn't really matter what I believe. They may have come to lie and deceive. Maybe not. Let's examine rationally (and not emotionally) what the reasonable response is in each situation:
    If Man Dehu came to the "Hidan" website when his whole intention is to misrepresent and lie, then this is a very interesting situation. That person knows that he is lying, that is, he knows that he is wrong and misleading and that the words of those who support science are the right ones. Therefore there is no need to convince him. At most it is possible to give the appearance of a matter-of-fact place to the refuting things and then dismiss it with cool disregard. Moreover, not only is there no point in discussing things with him, it is even harmful since any further conversation with a liar only gives him a platform to continue lying. I already discussed the paradox of dubbing someone who speaks illegitimately (whatever the definition of illegitimacy is) in my conversation with Camila (point no. 6).
    If Man Dehu came to the "Hidaan" site who genuinely thinks that the sun revolves around the earth, that flies are born from rotten meat or that humans are not the reincarnation of an ancient ape, then this is a completely different story. Ignorance or mental weakness is indeed not a desirable trait, but it is not a sin, and in my eyes it is no different from physical weakness. You can explain to that person the accepted scientific answer and try to enlighten his eyes, and you can also leave him in his unfortunate ignorance. But there is no logical or moral reason to whiten his face in public.
    Therefore, I will argue that the verbal violence we witness here and in other forums, not only is not morally justified, it also has no rational basis, and relies on intolerance of others and emotions masquerading as science and progress.

    Happy holiday,

  114. Birch cedar
    You're just being smart.. Proper 'rules of the game' according to Camila (as far as I understood it) are rules of the game of basic fairness during a discussion and nothing more..
    When, for example, a commenter brings a certain article to his side, and distorts its meaning in order to create a false representation, Kamila will say: As a person who comes from the field of 'extension', there will be a completely objective response, since to an outsider this is an indication of a violation of the 'rules of the game' in the sense of purely 'throwing sand' And you didn't bring relevant quotes..

    I personally think that even in such a situation there is an elegant and civilized way, she will still say that in such circumstances this is the way..
    Your tone is quite self-righteous, certainly when I or you or anyone else makes a comment that presents false and distorted 'knowledge' whose entire purpose is cheap propaganda and nothing, it is indeed against the 'rules of the game' or however you define it..

  115. withering,

    5. "I do not see the opinions regarding the correct conduct regarding illegitimate comments as a source of controversy.. I do not see the need to detail my opinions beyond what arises from the comments and beyond what I have already explained in the discussion here. I have no interest in a principled discussion of what I would do if I belonged to the site's team and if I had censoring abilities/powers"

    Isn't it a wonder? The bone of contention has also become a bone of contention.
    On the contrary, Camilla, the exchange between us revolved around the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and how one should behave with those who are not legitimate enough. This is not a discussion about me and you but about the gap between two approaches, and as such, it is certainly relevant to our case how a website, company, country will operate according to the (intolerance) codes you propose. Kant in the famous Categorical Order proposed a simple method for examining the morality of actions. What would a world look like where everyone behaved this way and would you like to live in such a world? In order to examine the morality of your approach according to Kant's method, it is appropriate to find out what a world would look like in which everyone allows themselves to be "last withers", including webmasters with censorship capabilities. Without further clarification from you, I am left to assume that through your apparent intellectual enlightenment, a thought police will arise that is better placed in the Middle Ages or dark regimes. So ironic, when this comes up in the name of a spokeswoman in the name of progress.

    A strong fondness abounds, it seems, for the concept of the "rules of the game". You mentioned the same game no less than 5 times in your last comment, 10 times in the one before it and the other hand is tilted. Beyond the verbal repetition that raises an eyebrow on the part of the reader, it is a laundry of words and an empty concept. There is no game with you and there was not. I don't think that anyone from my class sees a discussion with you as a game. I also don't think you're driving like someone during a game, but more like someone in the middle of a battle. A game is a recreational activity with defined rules agreed upon by the players. The rabbi is also fun. But here you don't agree with your interlocutors what the rules of the game are acceptable to both of you and then start playing. Instead, it seems that you are trying to impose on them the rules of the game accepted by you, which you also define with a commendable breadth of horizons, as the only legitimate system of difficulties in existence when they are the only "basis on which a meaningful discussion can even exist". It should not be surprising where your interlocutors, who do not accept in advance the limits of the lost gender that you drew for them, will "sin" again and again in their trampling. From the outside, it looks like a ridiculous game of a football player playing against a basketball player. Adom, overcome with rage, whistles on his whistle and repeatedly waves a red card in front of him for the fact that his other side touches the ball with his hand and even dares to dribble it. No one is obliged to enter your court and dance to your flute, and if you do believe that beyond your court the world ends, then your world is as narrow as an ant's world and I feel sorry for you. In order to really "play" with someone, and not subjugate their hand in the appearance of a "game", it is appropriate not to assume in advance and as a default what the rules are, but to define them together with the interlocutor until finding an equal valley from which it is possible to pass and discuss what is different.

    6. "Everyone is given an equal opportunity at the beginning which includes attribution of playing by the rules by default... Exposing the failures in the responses and illustrating their repetitiveness (and hence it is not just an innocent mistake) usually require several rounds of responses. This is necessary in order to convince the other readers about the nature and way of thinking of the commenter, it is not just about prolonging the discussion for the sake of discussion"

    If I understood correctly, the method is simple. Shuga should be allowed to express himself, politely explain his achievements and give him a chance to turn from his sins and accept the correct version according to the correct rules of play and play, in Kamila's eyes of course. If he insists and stands his ground, he must be allowed to express himself more and more, now with the intention of publicly exposing the disgrace of his mental inferiority while denouncing him in public condemnations. A rhetorical masterpiece, without a doubt.
    Know that this is a double-edged sword, and in your attempts to expose others, you are also exposed. Your responses indicate your character, your temperament, the breadth of your heart and the breadth of your horizons. For example your words:
    "When that commenter proves with signs and examples, whether in his words to me or in previous words to others who drew his attention to the problems arising from his words, that he insists on not playing by the rules of the game, it is permissible in my opinion to treat him harshly, just as one should behave in other contexts in which people behave like this"
    They give a certain indication of how you live your life and what the appropriate norms of behavior are in your eyes.
    It should come as no surprise that you don't want to associate all of this with your real name, which you choose to humble and separate from your words, so that it will not be tarnished by such revelations.

    As for the principle of respect and the apparent lack of connection between your ignorance and your outspoken style, either in your words you are naive, or you do not understand the said principle, or both.
    You very willingly choose to whip fire and brimstone with your tongue on the heads of your interlocutors out of intellectual and righteous superiority, but not openly. This willingness also shows your character.

    7. "By and large, yes, I don't really understand where you're going with this statement..."

    The point is simple. Real scientific discourse revolves only around the facts and their interpretations. Science deals with the question of how the universe reveals itself to us and not what our hearts tell us. Emotion is a worthy human product, but it has no real place in a discussion of scientific value. Many comments here, including yours, are tainted with a wide spectrum of negative emotions: anger, hatred, paranoia and a heaping dose of ego. All this under the guise of pure rationality and the purity of science. What is going on here is not science but the market. Who shouts louder at whom.
    Teaching others science is what you want, but do you remember yourself?

  116. Rani:
    My words are backed up no less than Zelicha's words.
    I raised points that he literally ignored.
    Ignorance is not something based on data. Ignoring is ignoring.
    I told you that my words are also accepted by professional economists.
    I will not continue to argue with you on the subject.

  117. Michael,

    I thought I would gain macroeconomic insights backed by statistical evidence and comparative data for attribution.
    If I've learned anything from science, it's that intuition, devoid of any facts, sometimes fails us.
    Here comes the accountant general and asks us to abandon the intuition he calls a "brainwashing product" of Houn-Shelton-newspaper and judge according to the data.
    The key figure, hidden from us, is the fact that the Israeli economy does not create enough jobs thanks to oligarchic concentration in which the economy is biased in favor of capital and against labor.
    Although you are not an economist, it is possible that your gut feelings, which there is not the slightest doubt about, indicate acute intuition that is immeasurably superior to the knowledgeable analysis of a senior economist such as the accountant general who you claim is wrong and misleads a large public of people who are not familiar with the faucets of the macro economy.
    I would be happy to receive a factual basis for your claims because as you know, even an intuition-driven creationist explanation is very convincing until you get to the evidence stage...


  118. David:
    Since I have already said more than enough things that refute your claim, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that probably nothing will help you.
    The ultra-orthodox are not to blame for their evasion and crime waves in the country are not the criminals' fault but the police.
    You show nothing.

    Do you propose not to include them in the coalition?
    Who exactly are you offering this to?
    There are parties that thought in the past and by force of inertia still think today that foreign affairs and security are the main thing.
    None of the parties (apart from Or) put on their banner the separation of religion from the state.

    True - from the considerations I presented, many prefer to influence the choice of their execution rather than the future of the country.

    What's even funnier is the following:
    Even if you believe in the baseless conspiracy theory according to which the members of the Knesset have adhesive tape on their ass and are not ready to let go of their seats (a conspiracy theory that is disproved time and time again by their sitting in the opposition of secular parties), then what emerges from this is that these parties should not be elected.
    And here - even though this is a necessary conclusion even according to your nonsense - you come and try to encourage those who will continue to vote for these parties by trying to mock Or.

    What do I say and what will I speak? You must be a brilliant person!

  119. Machel

    This and more how "with her free consent". It may not please her (the ruling party), but she had the full choice not to agree to the terms. (as Joel illustrated)

    From the point of view we discussed here - the ultra-Orthodox are indeed innocent of any crime.
    It is a sectoral party that represents its (loyal) voters.

    The options before you are:
    A. Do not include them in the coalition.
    B. Enact a law that ultra-Orthodox do not have the right to vote.

    Yoel and I don't turn the other cheek - we show who should actually be slapped.

    Apparently the Or party has more problems just from the fear of losing votes.

    Dahil Rabak

    815 votes in the last elections.

  120. Joel:
    a quote:

    "It should interest you if you want to understand and know. This is the science site, isn't it?"

    No matter how you try again not to understand it: as I wrote:
    Their smooth 'world of concepts' should not interest me if in any case these 'concepts' are dragging my country and yours into the abyss.. Sounds excessive?? Not sure, a matter of economics.. What is there to 'understand' more?

  121. And another thing I agree with Yoel is that the secular parties have failed.
    I don't agree with his conspiracy theory about the reasons but the failure remains.
    This is a conclusion I reached a long time ago and therefore I was a partner in the decision to establish the Or party.
    It seems to me that with all the controversies expressed in this discussion - this is a party (which does not deal with accusations but with solutions) that Yoel will also vote for.

    A lot of people are afraid to vote for a small, new party that is unlikely to pass the threshold.
    They fear that their voice will be "wasted" like this.
    On the other hand - it is clear that the existing parties will continue to act according to their historical priorities (because they too - like Yoel - find it difficult to admit a mistake) and therefore - whoever chooses to vote for them because of the above consideration (so that his voice will not be "wasted") does achieve his goal and his voice It is not "wasted" but has a substantial effect on the choice of hanging.

  122. Yoel:
    Are these all the examples you can think of?
    And what about the example of a man who doesn't use any force and just tells a woman that he will kill her if she doesn't find him?

    Come and see what is written In the Penal Code:

    HaBoel Woman -
    not with her free consent, causing physical suffering, Applying other means of pressure or a threat to one of these, and one is if these were made towards the woman or towards someone else;
    With the consent of the woman, fraudulently obtained as to the nature of the doer or the nature of the act;
    When the woman is a minor who has not yet reached the age of fourteen, even with her consent; or
    Utilizing a state of unconsciousness in which the woman is subject, or another condition which prevents her from giving free consent;
    Utilizing being mentally ill or ill-educated, if due to her illness or due to her educational deficiency, her consent to the cause was not free consent;
    After all, he is rape and death - sixteen years in prison.

    In short - just as you don't understand what responsibility is, you don't understand what morality is and you don't understand what a mitzvah is - you also prove that you don't know what rape is.

    You don't understand.
    The final conclusion of Joel's words is quite correct.
    Although none of his arguments are true, our main problem (not the only one, of course) is really with secular people.
    So how is it that he is convincing without giving any correct reasoning?
    Simply by being a personal example of the problem!
    Like many of the discussions here - long after the arguments of the ultra-Orthodox have been silenced - the debate continues with the secularists of the second cheek who try to clear the ultra-Orthodox of any blame.
    This is not about Knesset members in general (who many times, as I demonstrated and as Yoel ignored) chose not to enter the government, but those Knesset members who resemble Yoel.

  123. to camila

    Mr. Almoni went down to Mrs. Flamoni's apartment and told her to sleep
    Standing beds. said
    No Oba, she answered him. I am a lady for my body, and you are not welcome to me.

    ¤ © ¨ × ×
    Mr. Almoni punched Mrs. Plamoni, she fell to the ground, continued to hit her and did what he wanted.
    Mr. Almoni did not hit Mrs. Flamoni but showed her the butcher's knife he brought with him and indicated that if she did not submit to him he would hurt her. Mrs. Flamoni barked, fearing for her life and Mr. Unknown did what he wanted.
    It's rape.

    A second option
    Mr. Almuni sat down on the sofa, smiled and said to her: Do you remember the tenants' meeting next week, where you want permission to expand the balcony? You know that right now there is a tie, and only I can tip the scales in your favor. Lie down and stand?
    Nevertheless, a balcony extension.
    And from that time to this day, the death of Mrs. Flamoni was devoted to Mr. Unknown. After all, she wanted more things at home, including the chairmanship of the committee is no joke. She could also choose the color of the renovation.

    Only good

  124. To Eric
    Should interest you if you want to understand and know. This is the science site, isn't it?
    What needs to be done is another matter. But in order to do that, you need to know - and this is the whole discussion here - against whom to demonstrate. And these are not the ultra-orthodox, because they don't listen to you, nor do they relate to the principles you talk about.

    Water grinding or not: the issue is who is responsible for it, and again: who is responsible. Not the one who wanted and received but the one who agreed and gave. And here, what to do, there are those who prefer to blame the ultra-Orthodox as being responsible for this, and not those who did it.

    That is: the mainstream should demand that its parties behave differently. But he won't, and neither will his parties. Because in addition to all that political opportunism of the preference for the convenient government, a matter that the voters are definitely in favor of, there are some more deeper things, because of which the ultra-Orthodox received a supreme status.
    For example: they grant the official permission to "Who is a Jew" - and this is a very important matter in the ethos of this country.
    But that's another issue already.

  125. To the last Camilla

    A rapist is someone who uses his power to impose his wishes.
    In the power relationship between rape and rape, it is very clear who has power and who is forced to surrender or surrenders at all using that power or the threat of it.

    And, with all due respect, it really doesn't work here. On the contrary.

    In this country, as of now and since its founding, the people in power are the mainstream parties. They devoted themselves to the ultra-orthodox for reasons of political opportunism. No more, no less. They surrendered and their voters let them do so.

    Saying second and expanding: political opportunism, which sold basic principles of political management in favor of the interests of ultra-Orthodox leadership, which does not even consider itself part of the fundamental ethos of this place.

    The ultra-Orthodox blackmail could exist because they surrendered to it and did not send its representatives to the appropriate place for those who demand such things from the state. This, if everyone wanted, could have been prevented. But this is not what happened, because they always preferred a contemporary coalition even at the price of paying at the expense of the country's future.

    It's not rape, it's a principled passionate dedication for our short-lived sake.

    So your image, with all due respect, doesn't work. He collapses.

  126. Excuse me Yoel: this has already been told to you by other commenters: you grind water.. why? Because instead of complaining endlessly, you should just go out, demonstrate, and protest... that's all... you can dig into whether an ultra-Orthodox is 'educated' or not. Bottom line: it's crooked and needs to be changed.
    'I believe' is not an excuse
    Their 'world of concepts' should not interest me if it drags my country into the abyss..

  127. Joel,
    1. Every woman is responsible for her body.
    2. Bestowing favors is a fundamental element in the context of the woman's body.

    Therefore, if a woman gives of her grace to another person, she is responsible for it, etc., etc.

    But when a woman does this following blackmail with threats, for example, then it is rape. In your opinion, even in such a case the woman is guilty and responsible, while the one who rescued and raped her is exempt, because he only received what she agreed to give. Your ability to disassociate yourself from the circumstances of the "agreement" to the provision of pleasure favors to the ultra-Orthodox by the leading party, as M.R. He detailed in his comments, really scary (especially when you pretend to draw your conclusions logically and wrongly). However, I agree that the way to change the situation cannot be through expecting the ultra-Orthodox to take responsibility for their immorality, just as I would not expect a rapist to take responsibility for the injury he caused to the woman he raped. There is no doubt that there are cases of rape in which the woman acted unwisely, there is still an unbridgeable gap between the responsibility for unwise behavior and the responsibility for the act of rape itself. Your approach on attributing responsibility here is appalling in my opinion.

  128. To Eric
    In my personal opinion, the release of the ultra-Orthodox from military service, the granting of permission for the existence of their education system in general and given its existence, the exemption from core studies in particular, together with subsidizing their existence and several other things are among the most serious threats to the future of the State of Israel. Certainly when you combine this matter with the growth of their political power, certainly with the increase in their electorate.

    An "Orthodox person" does not think about these things, because he was brought up not to do so, because he was brought up to other alternatives, because he was allowed to, because his leadership wants it, because it gives them control over him at all levels of existence.

    And above all: because above all the matter of the state and its components, in the ways that you, I, and others believe are necessary, distant and foreign to them at best, and in the Zionist context create deep and fundamental halachic problems for them.

    is it normal definitely not. Does it meet the distinct requirements of the Halacha itself? also not.

    But this is what happened here, in Israel only - and not anywhere in the world, not in the relationship between the state and a certain type of citizen, not in the way of life of the ultra-orthodox themselves - in this area. It suited their leadership; It really helped the leadership of the country, in the immediate political sphere. future? Deep long-term vision? This is not part of the accepted arrangement here.
    However, in order to understand what's wrong there and how it works, because after all they also encounter such reactions, you need to at least get to know their world of concepts, their way of thinking.

    It works differently than what we know and love.

  129. To Joel:
    a quote:
    "You too: "What you call Gemara". They certainly don't think it's a joke, they're convinced that this is what protects the people of Israel, and it's a fact in their opinion that this is what Halacha has been doing for the past 2000 years. Learning Torah is the main thing for them, and after the Holocaust it is the most important thing."

    Could you explain how all this justifies the collapse of the State of Israel in the future due to a disproportionate increase between the percentage of supporters and the supported..? And why doesn't an ultra-orthodox person have the responsibility to think about these simple consequences? 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.. no?
    And besides: in the Bible there is no mention of a person's duty not to work and earn a living..

  130. to one of the people
    Who is talking about evolution in this discussion lately? Somehow this matter of the privileges that the ultra-Orthodox have came up. All that I mentioned to those who, as usual in these matters, have gone to the trouble of accusing the ultra-Orthodox of those privileges and the destructive separation of Israeli society, whatever they have received from the seculars starting with the state and even more so for thirty years.
    If this is so, they should be less of an object of hatred/disgust, etc., and the ones who should be held accountable are those who granted them these rights. Those who gave them are the chosen ones of the people. So the responsibility is on them.
    Why do I grind water? Because there are people who are not ready to accept the sad fact that "their" camp is responsible, and the one who was the object of hatred is not the one who took but received from the one who gave.
    I hope that is clear now.
    Note: I didn't find a single tail of my claim that I understand better or anything. I treated things matter-of-factly, and when I thought they were wrong, I wrote like this. When a personal claim was directed at me, I addressed that as well.
    This interpretation is yours, certainly not based on what I wrote.
    Only good

  131. Yoel, I didn't understand what you want to say - beyond the claim that you understand better than everyone else in half a dozen areas, including the principle of separation of powers, basic concepts in Halacha, everything that all religions claim to represent (or not), the political considerations of the leaders of the Jewish settlement for generations, the reasoning of ultra-Orthodox Evading their civic duties, knowing the facts in general, and these arguments of the litigants here are relevant to why.

    If "Israel chose" and "everything else is irrelevant to the main point and essence", it is not clear why you are treading water on the question of historical responsibility and its meaning in your eyes. What is important is that the reality is unacceptable and must be changed.

    Your 'choice' argument ("Israel chose, [...] the choice [...] was made by the one who chose [...] and those who chose are the ones who can choose between A and B. And you know who chose"), by the way, You will not hold water even if you tilt the root in B.H.R. Half a dozen more times. But if you are so urgent to declare that the ultra-Orthodox politicians are innocent and only the secularists are responsible for everything, I really don't want to disturb your enjoyment.

    Could you by any chance also explain what, in your opinion, the wisest of all contributes to the discussion on evolution?


  132. To David
    To discuss this matter, you need two things: to know what the word "responsibility" means and to whom it applies in this case, and to know the political history of the State of Israel. Everything else, including expressions of hatred and contempt for another public, is irrelevant.
    So what to do, facts are not my strong point, and scores in logic of the above type bring to mind problems in getting to know this field.
    for example
    1. Each party that leads the government is responsible for the principle direction in which the country goes
    2. Exemption from military service, core studies and giving the ultra-Orthodox public the option not to work are fundamental elements in the principle direction in which the state is going

    Therefore: each party that leads the country is responsible for the exemption given, etc., etc.

    On the other hand, you should at least know the principles that guide this public. Just a matter of principle that should be nice for this site in particular and for discussion between people in general. You too: "What you call Gemara". They certainly don't think it's a joke, they're convinced that this is what protects the people of Israel, and it's a fact in their opinion that this is what Halacha has been doing for the past 2000 years. Learning Torah is the main thing for them, and after the Holocaust it is the most important thing.

    What Ben-Gurion wrote is an escape from responsibility. He determined that the country should be statehood, and forced it on the left (including its education system). He did not do this in front of the religious and ultra-Orthodox for political reasons.

    All I claim is simple: the ultra-Orthodox have many rights beyond the ordinary citizen, the ultra-Orthodox have fewer obligations than the ordinary citizen - and all of these were given to them by the mainstream of the State of Israel.

    Any change will begin with this recognition, as long as the responsibility is shifted to the ultra-Orthodox, it will only serve them, because the opposition is not directed at those who have the power to change, and on the other hand, what is said in the secular public is not really relevant to them. They have their own public.
    just no?

  133. Another word for Yoel that I forgot above. Maybe Ben-Gurion will be less guilty in your eyes if you read his words:

    Israel is a democratic country, and its existence cannot be described without a democratic regime built on the freedom and free self-determination of its residents. There are pious people who believe in good faith that a day will come when God will purify the hearts of the people and every Jew will be a believer and anxious like them. And there are those who are confident that time will do what the mind did not, and in the days to come everyone will be like them.
    […] The existing arrangement is the fruit of a compromise, which of course does not include all opinions, as is the way of compromise; This compromise was accepted in order to prevent a religious war, both a war for religion and a war in religion, which could seriously damage the merger of the Gholivites, which stands in the way of the state. The persistence of the compromise is conditional on the degree of tolerance and mutual respect that those with opposing views on matters of religion and spirit are able to show out of a shared love of Israel.
    A state status for the rabbinical office in a country that has pledged freedom of conscience and religion, and which has both religious parties that take their souls to the rule of religion, as well as lovers of tradition and ultra-Orthodox who deny the rule of religion, and also a broad public of freedom of opinion, is a minefield in which walking is not guaranteed of hazards and dangers.
    […] The ability to compromise is an essential condition for the existence of any public, organization and country. Even an established and stable country needs the ability to compromise in matters that do not require an urgent and final decision. The State of Israel needs this talent many times over [...] Uncompromising polemics about the status of religion in the country or attempts at coercion in religious matters could serve as a national explosive, and in the best case, will delay the process of internal fusion.

    Netzah Israel, Vision and Way 280, pp. 277-XNUMX

  134. Pack jokingly.

    The nicest paradoxical question I know is - if God is omnipotent, can he not be anything?

    For Yoel and for Mechel:

    The truth is that it is not really clear, aside from the verbal sparring between you about who bears the greater burden of responsibility for the current situation, the ultra-Orthodox or the secular parties, if there is any difference in your opinion on the matter at all.
    The difference between you lies in the way of presenting the opinion, which with Mechel is always coherent and logically reasoned, while Yoel sins many times by flourishing statements that he has the right to think, but they remain suspended in space without any factual coverage or logical foundation.
    This statement by Joel caught my eye ## The religious do not claim to represent the Torah. These are your concepts, not theirs. These are certainly not concepts of the ultra-orthodox.##
    If that's what you think Yoel, then what do the ultra-Orthodox represent? I don't know how well you know the ultra-Orthodox world, but for them, learning Torah is fiddling with the Babylonian Talmud, what you call Gemara.

    As for the responsibility and inherent need of the ultra-Orthodox in demanding and taking us away from the secular parties, there is no good in bringing in speakers from among them, such as the outrageous words of Rabbi Chaim Shaul Karlitz, "The entire Knesset is against the Torah. The very thing that humans stand up to and declare that they are the legislators, this is against Torah from heaven. And it doesn't matter if there is a majority on the right or the left, and what laws they pass there. Even if they vote in the Knesset in favor of observing mitzvot, this is against the Torah... and any laws that people believe in their hearts, with a majority vote one way or the other, it is against the Torah... so are the representatives in the Knesset, they are our lobbyists to prevent damage to the holy places of Israel and the Torah observant public as a whole. There is no recognition in this of the existence of this institution, whose name, the Legislature, indicates that it is entirely against God's teachings... The very fact that Jewish judges judge according to the foreign laws of the Turks or the English, and not according to our holy teachings, is what obliges us to oppose them in all validity. Even if they make decisions on behalf of the ultra-Orthodox public, the opposition to them will still continue, because all their decisions are not from a pure source - God's teachings - they come, but from constitutions that the nations of the world believe in." (Yad Na'am 31.5.2000)

    So it is true that the short-sightedness of those at the head of the ruling parties and elevating the foreign and security problems to the point of almost ignoring the internal problems was our fault, but it is impossible to put the full responsibility on them [the seculars] and the guilt of the ultra-Orthodox is very great.
    You too, Yoel, if you were a prime minister putting together a coalition, maybe you would say to yourself that the security situation is so worrying and disturbing to you, that you don't care about throwing another billion to the ultra-Orthodox, the main thing is that they let you solve the Iranian problem in peace.
    This is indeed a cry for generations, but a description of a situation that is certainly realistic for the considerations of a head of state.

    Beyond that, I ask myself, Joel, why did you actually find it necessary to attack Mkhal's position, when in fact you almost agree.
    Is your goal in the discussion to learn and wait or to share and participate in the cross-fertilization of thinking and ideas? Or is all you care about is winning an argument?
    Are you one of those people who talk to people, but not with people? Are you interested in what others have to say? Or are you one of those who have already seen everything, heard everything, know everything and no one can teach them anything?

  135. Erez
    What does Descartes do? It begins, so that everything is "clean", from the casting of doubt by man (given the collapse of all knowledge until then, this is reasonable). From here he - the person - progresses through a number of stages and arrives through his own affairs, to the fact that there is something/someone else. That is: God is a derivative of man. This is not such a good arrangement.
    Spinoza spoke of a deistic god, one who does not interfere in the affairs of the world (and therefore does not get along with the "religious" god) and on the other hand is compatible to the extent that he is fully compatible with nature. From the metaphysical point of view, there is no problem in creating a complete correlation between such a "god" and the entire universe. It just doesn't work so well with any other conception of God, the one who is involved, punishes, is the object of prayers, responds to human actions according to known principles, etc. Spinoza did not deny the existence of God, but that his God is not the usual spoken entity.

    To Michael
    What you say.
    In light of your factual-essential errors, such as combining "mitzvah" and "hillel", or "representation of the Torah", I would like to recommend an introductory course on the subject.
    Parable What is it similar to? For those who claim to know law and justice, and talk about "accuser", "accused" - and civil law.
    Or for those who refer to the achievement of Professor Danny Shechtman, and talk about crystals and liquid.
    Strip yourself, etc.

  136. Joel:
    If only you had listened to your own advice, everything would have looked different

  137. Joel,

    As for Descartes' essential errors, there are so many that it is hard to know where to choose.
    Still, his writing is beautiful and at least until the middle of the "second logic"* with the famous "I think means I exist" it seems to me that it is also possible to remove the hat from his extreme casting of doubt. A brave move. Too bad he spoiled it later..
    (* He wrote the book Logics as a collection of essays accompanied by thought experiments)

    Regarding the eighth problem, I am not sure that there is a problem with proving God through man. Descartes only knows himself (and even in this he casts a lot of doubt, while eliminating his senses and his body and his rational) and therefore it is only natural that when he does find a stable point of support, aka his thought, he bases all of reality on it, including God.

    God in philosophical discourse has many faces.
    He does not have to be the entity described in the Bible or the object of prayers, this is one of many options for who God is, but not necessarily the only option. I think that only a religious person is obligated to such a God, and maybe even he is not (Isaiah Leibovitz claimed, as far as I understand, that God and the universe have no contact with each other and only exist side by side).
    God can be outside of space or united with space itself. The second approach characterizes Spinoza's heretical definition of the concept of divinity.

  138. Larza and Nir
    Descartes' essential error that he reaches God from man, from casting doubt on everything. When God is in the sixth or seventh stage of proof, and it begins with man, there is a problem. God is not the foundation and cause of causes.

    Regarding the unlimited God: if God is not limited in space, what is called infinite, he must be one with the infinite universe, otherwise he is not infinite.

    If he is inside the universe, certainly not, what's more, there is a problem with creation. This of course does not agree with the existence of objects, and if it does, God is part of the keyboard which is a part of it. Nor does it go with that being that the people turn to and must be outside of them somewhere.

    Philosophical proof of God (also) is a problem that does not help to solve the basic refutations in the claims regarding him (and it also contradicts the biblical revelation, but that is another story).

  139. To Michael
    so no.
    Still, knowing basic concepts is a prerequisite. Regarding reading comprehension: Well, really; After all, we have already seen. And in general, arrogance and aggressiveness do not replace it.

  140. Nir,

    You made me laugh with the pattern of the mullet and the socks :)

    As for the infinity of God in the face of the limitations of all creatures of creation and the inability to compare them, in that you sketched the thought process in which Descartes (in his opinion) proved the existence of God.
    Descartes says, in a free translation: "I am limited, and yet I have an idea in my head, an idea of ​​infinity." A limited brain cannot generate such a thought by itself and it follows that the infinite God planted it in my mind. From this it follows that there is a god."
    It didn't buy me, and neither did many of his contemporaries, but on the other hand, there were many who were convinced.

    When you talk about God being "unlimited", you should make it clear to yourself and us exactly what you mean.
    Can God die? If not, then he is limited in his ability to determine the fate of his existence.
    And in the same spirit, can God lie, multiply, err?
    Can he create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it (known paradox)? Here, whether it is or not, one or another limitation of God arises.

    In the absence of a better explanation, I can live with the claim that the laws of nature are fundamentally spiritual (although, if you simplify this concept from reason and purpose, you are mostly left with wonders, and almost every scientist will admit with a smile that the world is endlessly wonderful).
    In my opinion, it will turn out that the laws of nature were determined randomly from a wide range of possibilities between alternative universes, or alternatively, that they are bound by reality from a fundamental mathematical principle that underlies everything and whose nature we have not yet established.
    Or then it could be that the spirituality that underlies everything will be something like the number pi or e.

    happy New Year,

  141. white cedar

    5) I don't see the opinions regarding the correct conduct regarding illegitimate responses as a source of controversy but something that bothers you in the context of my style (and bothers me less). Part of the plurality of opinions as expressed in the different styles shows that there are several approaches. My approach is best explained through my responses themselves, therefore I see no need to detail my views beyond what follows from the responses and beyond what I have already explained in the discussion here. I have no interest in a principled discussion of what I would do if I belonged to the website team and if I had censoring abilities/powers.

    6) You wrote: "It is clear that we both see value in having a dialogue with those whom we perceive as holding wrong views."
    You are missing something here that I have already explained before, I have no problem discussing with those who hold different opinions and even objectively wrong ones (either because of relying on facts that are not true or because of logical failures in the arguments). In fact everyone is given an equal chance at the start which includes attribution of playing by the rules by default. However, when that commenter proves with signs and examples, whether in his words to me or in previous words to others who drew his attention to the problems arising from his words, that he insists on not playing by the rules of the game, it is permissible, in my opinion, to act harshly on him, just as one should act in other contexts in which people Drive in this way. Exposing the failures in the responses and illustrating their repeatability (and hence it is not just an innocent mistake) usually require several rounds of responses. This is necessary in order to convince the other readers about the character and way of thinking of the commenter, it is not just about prolonging the discussion for the sake of discussion. It is a fact that at a certain stage, after it has been clearly illustrated what the recurring problems are for that respondent, the reference changes and often stops completely. If by doing so it is possible for those commenters to repeat the same failures several times, this does nothing but strengthen my words which point to those failures. It's not for nothing that I finally ended my words by appealing to the reader to choose which way of thinking he prefers, and this after the other side has dug a hole deep enough for itself in my opinion. After all, I don't really think I will be able to convince those commenters who insist on sticking to illegitimate game rules.

    Style greatly affects the effect that will be had on people who drive illegitimately, and although it would be ideal if the police, with some distinctions, would address the criminals politely and with reluctance and compassion and try to explain to them why their behavior is not normal, still sometimes (by definition not always) a more style is needed "Obviously". When you, for example, conduct a long discussion with another commenter who repeatedly deviates from the rules of the game, which are the basis on which a meaningful discussion can take place at all (in fact, these rules of the game are the justification for holding the discussion on science in the first place) you sin twice: once because you do not insist on stopping and revealing and clarifying the illegitimacy of the commenter's words (whether it is because of repeatedly ignoring questions, providing wrong facts, failed arguments, distorting the words of others, etc.) so that other commenters understand what the situation is (not everyone recognizes this). And a second time because the very tolerance towards lack of legitimacy creates an appearance of legitimacy because it seems as if at least some of the problematic things are accepted as true. The reader from the side that has not yet formed an opinion, gets the impression that this is a discussion of equal strength (even if it is clear to him that at most there is only one right), in which two sides have the same legitimacy. From the moment this impression is created, it is clear that the party that uses logical fallacies and lies that the third observer does not recognize yet, has a great advantage in the ability to convince, for the simple reason that it is much more difficult to assert claims that are based on proven facts and arguments that have a solid logical structure. Erez, this is laziness and indolence, no less than that, and when this becomes a behavioral habit it is a real danger to your way of life (in this case to an essentially secular way of life that enables pluralistic democracy). I'm sorry you don't see it.

    7) By and large, yes, I don't really understand where you are going with this statement...

    8) There are many possible division axes but this does not mean that they all have similar weight. As I wrote before, I will always prefer things whose content is relevant and contributes something even if their style is lacking or problematic, compared to things that are said in beautiful and polite language but are devoid of actual content or worse, littered with mistakes and thought failures. I can't understand why anyone would prefer otherwise (and to remind you the best are of course things with content that are presented in a nice and easy-to-digest package, but if that were true, I wouldn't react the way I do...). Does it really matter to you if the crook who cheated you presents a beautiful or ugly appearance, if his words were funny or eloquent? Isn't this a treat in relation to the act of fraud itself?

    The principle of respect presents the theoretical principle that enables the transmission of a reliable message between two people who have interests regarding the same message. Respect is only effective if both the sender and the receiver are interested in a reliable message. Of course, a person (and perhaps any creature) can choose self-respect even when he does not know that the other party has an interest in receiving the message, but sometimes this can be a problematic and even dangerous act (such as dealing with terrorism by religious extremists in certain cases).
    The main respect regarding the content in the comments is the fact that the facts that the commenter states can be verified, that the logical structure of the things can be examined, etc. When a commenter makes a claim, it doesn't matter if his name is public or private. The claim, at least for me, is examined on its merits, therefore the nickname has no meaning in this context and in my opinion it is a serious mistake to link the things. There are other reasons, mainly sociological and unrelated to the quality of the content, which in my opinion justify enjoying the possible secrecy. I agree that those who respond with their full name receive a certain weightage, but I do not believe that this weightage is seriously related to the quality of the content of his words. What, if you make a false claim then you will be fired? I do not think so. But if you speak in religious condemnations that are lies, they might attack your house and stone it, maybe. There have already been threats on the site to officials on this site, but I prefer that they expand on it if they wish. In this sense, it is indeed a matter of respect, perhaps even a significant respect.

  142. Joel:
    I can only answer this response:
    First of all read
    then understand (what is called)
    Then homework
    And only then - if you can't help it - sermons.

    You don't act like that, so I don't find any point in continuing the argument with you.

  143. Honorable Yuval Chaikin
    You write about things you don't know (the legislature, executive authority, etc.). I did not ask for grades from you, I referred to what you wrote. What you wrote about separation of powers and the way things are conducted in these areas is not true. point.
    What should be done? This is a completely different matter, certainly not related to the above.

    to Michael Rothschild
    The religious do not pretend to represent the Torah. These are your concepts, not theirs. These are certainly not concepts of the ultra-orthodox. An example of a fundamental lack of understanding: what Hillel said is not a mitzvah and he is not "their sage".

    You, like Mr. Chaikin, refer to a field that you don't even know the basic concepts of. You certainly and certainly do not know the ultra-Orthodox reasoning for not enlisting them, "their doctrine is their art" etc. The example of the bribery in relation to their self-perception is absurd.
    They are, really, convinced that they deserve it and that they are helping the people of Israel and learning Torah is the most important thing. That the state should not have accepted it is another matter entirely. And we have already agreed who received and who led.

    In short: homework first, then sermons.

    To Eric
    The secularists, most of them anyway, always chose parties that followed this arrangement, either directly and leading (Likud, Array) or indirectly, those who participated in these coalitions.
    Never, except for change, has there been any other political expression of the mainstream.
    We have never met even one political opinion leader who acted against the total non-recruitment or change in the state subsidy for yeshiva students.
    There is an abysmal difference between kippah-wearing religious people and the ultra-Orthodox in relation to the basic principles of the state in general and this state in particular.

    Don't you like it? Not to me either.

  144. ארי

    As far as I know,Roey Tsezana brings news and opinions to this site mainly in the form of articles and articles. He rarely responds to the comments of others and certainly avoids starting a discussion/argument with other commenters and he even expressed his intention explicitly many times. You should contact him about the reasons for this. I am convinced that he has the knowledge and abilities to reveal the deficiencies in the responses of some of the site's commenters no less well than the way I am trying to do. It is understood that when he expresses his positions in the article, there is naturally no reference to the specific commenters and reactions to the article for the simple reason that it precedes them... I do not know what style Roy would have chosen to use in the face of commenters who are not ready to play by the accepted rules of the game and to what extent he would have felt the need to denounce their improper conduct, But even if he had chosen to do it differently from me, it does not mean that he would have achieved the results that I think my style achieves. I don't understand on what basis you propose this comparison and especially what is willpower related to the matter, do you think that I don't choose this style but that it "falls apart" on me as if it were the bad boy in me? If so, how do you explain many responses in which I do not adopt such a style?

  145. Clarifications regarding my recent responses to Yoel:
    I have written a lot on this site about my view on morality.
    A large part of the things appears in the comments after this article:

    In general - I claim that what we experience as moral is a more or less universal thing that was created in us during evolution.
    There aren't really several separate moral systems.
    There are only a few systems of laws that were created for various reasons (mainly the desire to control people) that appropriate morality for themselves and set moral laws for people that they know in their hearts are not moral but they still accept them as a result of brainwashing.

    It is absolutely clear that any sane person - even if he is ultra-Orthodox - knows that dodging the burden and enjoying the burden placed on others beneath you is immoral.
    We are driven by various impulses and many times certain impulses push us to commit immoral acts.
    In these cases there is a conflict between our urge to perform a certain action and our urge to act morally.
    In these cases, a person's morality is tested by asking which of the impulses will prevail.

    I suppose we all want to do what we want and that the others will work for us and provide us with protection, food and housing, but only the ultra-Orthodox allow themselves to claim that it is moral in their own case.
    I am sure they know this is not the case but since religion has washed the influence of morality from their minds they allow themselves to lie and claim otherwise.

    Eric also tried to explain that this is what I meant in general.

    When I saw that the issue was still not understood - I turned to another channel and showed that the behavior of the ultra-Orthodox is immoral - not only according to the universal criteria (which are common to all human beings and therefore I call them universal) that I claim exist - but that these actions are also immoral according to religion.
    It's not that I accept the moral definitions of the religion - in my opinion, some of the moral definitions of the religion are simply horrifying and directly contradict human morality - but in this specific case, the religion clearly requires a requirement that is also moral in my opinion, and the evasion of the ultra-Orthodox is clearly also in accordance with this requirement.
    Of course I'm not the only one who sees this. Rabbi Halbertal and Rabbi Amslam - see the issue exactly as I do and it is not that they have their own private religion.

    Of course, Yoel's words as if the mere fact that the seculars are willing to compromise with them in order to promote other goals that seem more important to them (the seculars in question) absolve the ultra-orthodox from responsibility for their immoral demands are delusional.

    Imagine a man who stands trial for the crime of murder that he did not commit.
    Imagine that he has an alibi because he was at the time of the murder with Eli Yishai in a completely different place from the place where the murder was committed.
    Imagine that his lawyer asks Eli Yishai to testify truthfully so that he can exonerate his client.
    Imagine that Eli Yishai tells the lawyer that he is willing to testify truthfully, but only if they pay him fifty thousand dollars.
    The lawyer consults with his client and they decide that his client's life is at stake, they agree.

    Now Joel will come and say that the one who is guilty of the fact that Eli Yishai took a bribe is the person who is accused of not committing an injustice because Eli Yishai only took what he gave him.

    Funny, isn't it?

  146. Rani:
    These are several separate claims
    1. The oligarchs have no control over the number of jobs in the economy. When there are people who want to work, they create jobs. How many times have I personally taken part in this type of process. If the oligarchs control any workplaces, it is only in the workplaces they provide. The less they provide, the more people will look for employment solutions and some will find solutions (that do not depend on the oligarchs) that will provide employment to others as well. As mentioned - I have experienced this many times and this is a macroeconomic insight that Zelicha ignores.
    2. The right that society gives to the ultra-Orthodox not to work is unfair. Although everyone has the right not to work, only the ultra-Orthodox pay for it.
    3. The previous point obviously also has macroeconomic effects. If a normal company only has X jobs then on average they will be occupied by the X most qualified people for their positions (with some approximation, of course). This is not what happens in an abnormal society like ours where there is a huge group of talented people who are not working and their place is filled by less talented people. This is another macroeconomic point that Zelicha misses (and in addition - it also contradicts the interests of the oligarchy).
    4. Again - in connection with point 2 - assuming that the number of people able to work is N, then the remaining people N minus X in number - cost the state much more because some of them are ultra-Orthodox who receive money for idleness. This is not a macroeconomic point but a simple calculation.

    The religious do claim to represent the Torah.
    Enough with these empty statements.
    Those of them who comment here do so even with an unconquerable passion.
    They claim that the principle of the Torah and observance of the mitzvot are important to them and they also agree - verbally and externally - with the sage whose name is Hillel the Elder.
    In other words - although keeping the mitzvah is important to them on paper, in practice they break the mitzvah that the elder Hillel defined as the essence of the Torah.
    I couldn't believe I would have to explain even such a simple thing.
    It only reinforces my feeling that you simply decide on your conclusions and then defend them at all costs even if the cost is not telling the truth or gratuitous personal attacks.

  147. To David:
    No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that the ultra-Orthodox refuse to teach their children math and English, they could use their power to build special divisions for the ultra-Orthodox in the IDF. They won't go..
    We need to create pressure that will force them to educate their children to integrate into work and this is what rabbis like Amsalam say and it has nothing to do with religion at all. The result depends only on how much the ordinary citizen cares..

  148. to Joel
    Is the 'secular' something so abstract to you that you can blame him??
    There is no such thing, there are politicians who did not do what was assigned to them, and there is the small citizen who is angry.. and it makes sense to direct the anger towards those opportunists who live at our expense.. No religious concept justifies the exploitation of the public purse and it is certainly possible to make claims, for example, to a person who decides to exploit the transfer allowances in order to study at Kollel and not to support himself, because these allowances were not intended for that in the first place and it is a social crime to live like this..
    simple.. right?

  149. Yoel
    You point out facts and definitions while I point out flaws and suggestions for correction. You probably didn't understand that and that's why you earned a derogatory nickname from me. Nobody pays me for the time I spend bothering to talk to deaf ears. I agree that the facts you bring are mostly correct and in some cases even accurate. But since we are not talking about the same thing, from now on I will no longer respond to your words.

  150. To the author of the article:

    First of all, I really liked the article, since I also find myself trying to explain quite a bit to some religious people, that evolution is a "scientific theory" and not a theory. And a scientific theory because it can be said to be a fact.

    As a convert it is not easy to touch on these points with religious people because in a moment they think you are an unbeliever in everything and a delusional person, and that is why I learned not to try at all.

    One thing disturbs me in your writing that I would be happy to enlighten my opinion, if you want you will accept, if not that is also fine.

    Your quote:
    However, saying that there is no evolution is like saying "there is no gravity, there is an almighty god who is the one who guides every object that falls in exactly the right path and does not deviate a millimeter to the right or left". Fortunately, I haven't heard anyone say such nonsense in a long time.

    One of the problems of believing in God in non-believing people is the situation where they do not believe in the God that is in their imagination, and this is exactly what happened in this sentence you wrote.
    Simple logical thinking will make it clear to you that if such a thing called God does exist, then a person cannot understand such a power. This is more extreme than a small mullet trying to understand why a person puts socks before his shoes when he has no feet at all. Since the fish is finite (limited in its thought) and man is limited and God is not limited (infinite) and comparing the end with the infinite - not comparable.
    And why am I writing you these philosophical lines that are seemingly unrelated to the quote you wrote, since the Holy One, blessed be He, is not limited, and if He is not limited, then He must constitute everything, because if He does not constitute everything, He is limited in an area that He does not constitute, therefore if It constitutes everything, including the laws of mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, genetics, evolution, biogenesis, etc., etc., etc., etc. It can be said that they are not laws in themselves, but the way of the infinite power (God) to act in the world according to the lawfulness that he has determined.

    This very much connects with a well-known philosophical question of "where is the law of nature?"
    If we take a wooden table, and wait (just a hypothesis) 100 thousand years, the table will turn to dust, the question is, how does the table know when it should break down, as if waiting for X years, then one morning he says to himself "it's time for me to go back to the basics". What makes matter persist?
    If you say "the law is already embodied in the substance", I will ask "OK, but where is it, I don't see it".
    Conclusion: With faith in God or not - the laws of nature - are in themselves God's words. We talk about them, we know they exist but we don't see them.
    About this it is said "One cannot say things without hearing their voice".

  151. To David
    The ideal of ultra-Orthodox society is learning Torah. Service in the army interferes, work interferes. Once upon a time, also in Europe, it was accepted that this kind of Torah study was a matter for individuals. The ultra-Orthodox, since the Holocaust, have aspired for this matter to be their common property.

    To their delight, the state granted it to them, and after Begin's rise to power with excessive enthusiasm.

    Regarding the military service: among other things, this is a type of civil obligation, and they are not there. There is also too much potential for debauchery, and the whole military/secular identity is foreign to them. So if the state agrees, then what do they care? Rather.

  152. To Eric
    Thanks for the explanation and I really didn't miss it. On the contrary: that's why I responded.
    Since the outbreak of Zionism, the ultra-Orthodox do not consider themselves committed to its main message and, as we know, have come out against it; The ultra-orthodox do not see themselves committed to the fundamental values ​​of Israel as a state, not in the general context, not in the Zionist context.
    The ones who allowed them to even raise demands in the overall space of the state, let alone respond to them, are the secularists, who used the ultra-Orthodox - exactly(!) - to organize a government for themselves.
    The point is that the secularists are not ready to take responsibility for this and the bon ton of many of them is to attack the ultra-Orthodox, who, as mentioned, are not at all in the general business of running a country in the usual sense. They don't care either; The ultra-Orthodox are committed to their own society, not to the general society.
    But the seculars, who fundamentally failed to protect their country and society because of coalition matters, including betrayal of a local holy place such as serving in the army, attack the ultra-Orthodox.
    Which brings me to the main point of this discussion:
    Escaping responsibility while and through attacking the other.

  153. withering,

    4. Thanks for the clarification.

    5. "Since I do not set the policy here, since I cannot remove even a comma from anyone's words here, my opinion about what should have been done with commenters who present positions that are not legitimate is unnecessary."

    On the contrary. This is the bone of contention between us.
    Precisely because you are my interlocutor and the subject of the conversation between us, as you labeled it, is the subject of legitimacy and dealing with the illegitimate, I am interested in your perception of how troublemakers should be treated in a broad context in general and in an internet context in particular.

    6. "Sometimes continuing the discussion with commenters with illegitimate responses sharpens the absurdity of their way of thinking"
    "After reading your long threads* with other commenters of the type I'm talking about, I believe that the style I chose is even more necessary precisely to avoid the same false presentation as if every opinion is legitimate and deserves equal opportunities"

    It is evident that we both see value in having a dialogue with those whom we perceive as holding wrong views.
    In the past, I was a content editor on the "Davidson Online" website, which makes science accessible to the general public, similar to the "Hidan" website, where we also met for the first time. Even today I comment there from time to time, mainly in connection with the theory of evolution. When I choose to enter into an open discussion with a denier of facts, it means more to me than a dialogue. The public nature of the discussion allows me and my interlocutor to present the various arguments to the readership, so that other surfers facing similar questions or answers can find reference to things. This is, if you will, a public service.
    My puzzlement is as to your motives, that you do not identify such surfers not only as wrong but also as harmful and unwanted. However, in your frequent responses to those surfers, you encourage them to continue to spread their so-called wrong and harmful doctrine. Therefore, I repeat and sharpen my question, does your desire to expose the absurdity underlying their arguments outweigh your desire not to encourage them to continue to respond in a way that you find illegitimate?

    * For those of the readers who follow this dialogue, in "long threads" Kamila refers to a number of lengthy discussions that I held on the "Davidson Online" website with surfers who are not comfortable with the accepted scientific paradigm of the theory of evolution and who prefer alternatives such as the intelligent design approach:

    "Are you aware of the sarcasm you use from time to time?"

    I am aware, but not a person like you, who makes such explicit condemnations, will be moved by a little implied criticism.
    However, if there was any doubt about it, I am not sharing fake superlatives with you but speaking frankly.
    Like you, I also notice the difference between content and style (I just give them a different weight), and at the content level I have no doubt that you are among the most educated, eloquent and intelligent commenters on the site.
    Other questions that occurred to me:

    7. Do you agree with the statement that the accepted scientific approach** is a strict separation between the research of the existing (facts) and the influence of the desired (human preferences)? Or in other words, that unscientific preferences, feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the scientific pursuit, which deals with observations and their interpretation?
    (**We will exclude from this rule the studies in quantum mechanics on the poorly understood connection between the observer and the experiment)

    8. Looking at the participants of this discussion, it is evident that they can be divided into groups based on different criteria.
    One obvious axis of division is their rough division into supporters and deniers of the theory of evolution, and in that we are both on the same side of the fence.
    Another axis of division, which I wanted to bring to attention here, is the division between those who respect others with their words and those who offend them with their style.
    A third division criterion draws a line between respondents who respond by name (including Michael Rothschild, Itzik Beloy, Erez Gerti, Yuval Chaikin and Anochi) and respondents who respond anonymously behind pseudonyms.
    Those who comment on their behalf take more responsibility for their words and stand behind them on their own behalf, certainly in the age of Google where nothing is deleted from the web pages from the moment it is registered. This kind of exposure can be seen as a fine example of Prof. Amots Zahavi's "principle of respect"*** (how sincerity of intentions is expressed in nature). As a result of this, to the rabbi, these commenters write with more strict judgment in publishing their responses both at the level of content accuracy and at the level of wording and the relationship between them and their friends in the medium. Faced with this exposure, the anonymous respondent can say whatever comes to his mind and without bearing personal consequences concerning his personal reputation in the public.
    I wonder why you chose to respond anonymously and do you desire to reveal your name and stand personally behind your colorful style?

    *** Additional information on the principle of respect:

  154. ארי
    The capitalists in Israel are maybe 20 families. And they buy their power by buying politicians, controlling the media and the shakedown method.

    The ultra-orthodox parties were elected, the capitalist "party" was not elected.

    The ultra-orthodox parties represent 8 percent of the population (at least). and receive according to their percentage in the population.

    The only reason they don't go out to work until they are 30 is that they don't want to be in the IDF.

    The reason I know they don't want to be in the IDF is because the IDF is a "social melting pot" that will spoil their sons.

  155. To Camila:
    Why isRoey Tsezana, for example, able to clarify his scientific position assertively, but without being arrogant?
    It's all a matter of willpower.

  156. To Joel:
    It seems to me that you missed the point that *Yachel tried to convey to you..
    'Suppose' there is a 'public' in Israel of capitalists.. 'Suppose' they succeed in pushing through force the agenda that preserves their power and through this the centralization and the social gap.. and all through the politicians for that matter. You will place the blame on the political system that allows you the existing situation and not on the capitalists themselves who in general 'do their own thing' and trust their righteous interests according to how they see them.. This is a misconception of course.
    Justice is not a relative matter of one sector or another, Mkhal tried to tell you that when an ultra-orthodox politician promotes mainly - if not exclusively - his public affairs, objectively it is cancerous selfishness that ignores the rest of society's needs.
    We live in a society where we depend on each other. The transfer budgets for vulnerable populations were not intended for a certain public to use them for needs that it decided were more important, and to the same extent that when students demonstrate against 'Tnuva' it would be ridiculous to direct them to demonstrate instead against Tnuva - against the regulator who did not live up to his watch, (since in the end it is behaves like a pig and the move against her makes sense..) This is also the case when an entire public takes advantage of democracy in the end in order to harm it, everything must be done in order to express the matter without any noise and whistle and to fight in any (legal) way so that in the end the 'buzz' He will do his thing and make an impact.
    The time has come for the ultra-Orthodox to live the way they want but still submit themselves at least in regards to the dependence between budgets and basic conditions suitable for a modern economy, to serve in the army, etc. otherwise we have no chance here..

  157. The honorable Mr. Ben Ezra
    The warning was not written 2000 years ago and there is no evidence for this. The warning was written in Provence 800 years ago or something and there is evidence for this. It is clear that the attribution to Rashi is worth a lot in the holy book exchange, but attribution is not a fact. Attribution is a used way of giving value to something that is not something.

  158. Erez
    I just expanded what you said before into today's Hebrew and expressions that are accepted today also in the law. Regarding the Rambam, it is worth a more serious examination.

  159. jubilee
    When a word like snooze is attached to statements that are fundamentally wrong, it doesn't turn out well.

    Montesquieu proposed a principle that addressed the nature of government at the time and its legitimacy. What about this and corruption?
    What is the connection to the corruption that exists in Israel (or not) and the separation of powers?

    You simply do not understand basic concepts.

    The legislator is the Knesset. He is not someone educated or not, he is the representative of the sovereign, the people, his representative and oversees - among other things - the executive authority and grants - among other things - the powers to the judicial authority.

    The operator in this case is the operator. The executive body can include elements whose occupation is very long-term. The legislative body, on the other hand, sets temporary instructions, regulations from one day to the next, and discusses the events that happened yesterday.

    The USA has such experience, and the operations do not form the ranks of the chosen ones at all. However, there is supervision, and a few other things - and despite the enormous cars granted to the president in execution, he is supervised and controlled in many areas by the Senate/House of Representatives.

    Oh yes, there is corruption there too. Corruption is not a matter of structure, it is the result of other things.

  160. Joel,

    Right. However, I'm not sure that the earth's sphericity or its position in the solar system are good examples of this.
    These are not matters of convention but of fact, and in the long debates on these issues much evidence was brought forward.
    It seems to me, and please be corrected by those who understand the Rambam's definitions better than me, that scientific matters reside in the hall of the intelligent while social matters and human preferences reside in the hall of the famous (with or without the need for evidence).

  161. Joel! You are a snooze, but still two things:

    A) The legislator and the executive are two different roles that require different character of people. The legislator works for a long time and makes laws that should last for a long time. He should have a broad education and act in a settled opinion. The operator has to make quick decisions in a short time, "shoot from the hip". People with command experience in organizations such as the army or the police are suitable for this position. The parties in today's Israel offer an array of candidates who are good for neither this nor that.

    b) Separation of powers (I did not formulate it. See, for example, Montesquieu) is intended to prevent corruption situations like the ones we are experiencing in our country. Those who oppose it, please check their willingness to live in a banana republic or, alternatively, be a corrupt ruler themselves.

  162. white cedar,

    4) I am not related to the science site in any official way as having any position, my status is that of an ordinary commenter. If by chance there is a similarity between my opinions and the opinions presented by the administrators of the site and those who have a role in it, then this similarity is "accidental" and stems from a similarity in knowledge of the scientific field and a similarity in appreciation of the scientific game tools, unlike other games. I wrote accidental in quotation marks, because actually it is not accidental, but it is requested that those who believe in the scientific rules of the game will not be favorably impressed by other forms of thought that require renouncing at least one of the game's components. I read and comment more or less regularly and all the opinions I express here are personal, private and in the nature of my interpretation of things. In no way do my comments represent any of the site's operators, even if there are those who agree with them.

    Regarding the superlative "rich in scientific knowledge", I can say that in my responses I often use fairly simple rational tools and do not tend to bombard with facts (which exist in abundance and are known to me). In fact, I hardly respond at all in my field of expertise, the field in which my scientific knowledge is the most extensive and in-depth. I am trying to draw the attention of commenters and other readers to basic problems in arguments that are especially related to the subject of evolution, precisely because this field, precisely this field and not by chance, is subject to an absurd religious attack through rules of the game that at most can be said to be an overwhelming and proven failure in everything to do with understanding The phenomena we experience in the world, whether they are phenomena related to inanimate matter or living matter (and man as a whole).

    Regarding the article framed at the end of your response: I used the term "from the published" in a meaning similar to the one used in the law of evidence in Israeli law. I do not know Maimonides' usage/intention in this context, and from the distinction you presented it seems that this usage does not correspond to my intention.

    Regarding the site's policy regarding the conduct of comments, as mentioned, I am not the addressee regarding questions on this topic. In general, I have already written before that the style is less important to me than the substantive content. I will always prefer to read/hear high-quality arguments even if they are accompanied by bluntness or roughness than to listen to polite and clean speech but equally meaningless and based on sloppy ways of thinking, especially on nonsense and even outright lies. I don't expect this to be the preference of other readers (or of the site's policy), although I think it would be good for them. In all of the above it is not to be argued that I do not prefer an optimal situation in which the commenters all argue within the proper rules of the game and also maintain the purity of the language. If the situation was like this or close to it, I wouldn't have reached the same statements that are jarring to you, but the situation is not like this and in my opinion the statements are appropriate even if you don't like it. In fact, after reading your long threads with other commenters of the type I'm talking about, I believe that the style I chose is even more necessary precisely to avoid the same false presentation as if every opinion is legitimate and worthy of equal opportunity. There is a huge difference between the gagging of those who do not cooperate with a certain agenda (such as in dictatorial regimes) and the illegitimacy of those who are unwilling to play by the accepted rules of the game (such as in a defensive democracy, to use the term that M.R. often uses, and rightly so In my opinion).

    5) Maybe you didn't mean it to you, but your question engaged, and still engages, many good people in many contexts in which there are those who behave illegitimately. One of the contexts we are all familiar with is those who behave illegitimately in relation to the laws of the country. In such a case there are rules that define a rule of thumb on how to act (this is the punishment set by law for a certain crime), however the actual punishment is determined after weighing a wider context that includes the circumstances of the case, the history of that person and factors of this type. For example, a person caught stealing for the first time, his sentence is expected to be different from the one who was caught for the tenth time (unfortunately, in Israel it is not always like that...). Similarly, the law of a person who stole bread to feed his starving family may receive a different law from another person who stole for fun or to harm someone else. In your response, you made a connection between the website's policy and matters of style, but as mentioned, apart from style, there is also the context of the relevant content, and at the end of the day, the site administrator may decide to block a troll whose entire occupation is disruption and without any contribution to the discussion, but not to block other commenters whose style is blatant but at the same time careful For bringing factual and relevant content to the topic under discussion. I remember, for example, one commenter named Hugin (or something similar) whose comments attract viewers, are all politeness and light language games (you would love her) but she is a troll among trolls and her contribution to the discussions I have read so far in which she participated tends to be zero, and to be precise, her contribution is negative (very negative to include repeated attempts of harassment using a variety of other nicknames). Since I do not set the policy here, since I cannot remove even a comma from anyone's words here, my opinion about what should have been done with commenters who present positions that are not legitimate is redundant. I do act to the best of my understanding against the same reactions and the same responders. If it is decided by the site administrators that my style is not appropriate and I am warned about it, I will have to choose what is more important to me, until then I suppose I will continue to express myself in the way I think is right, that is, great patience for those who play by the rules of the game (even if they are ignorant and if they have innocent mistakes ) and a partial intolerance towards those who show that they are not. I wrote my part, because notice how careful I am to answer matter-of-factly even to the latter type of commenters, which cannot often be said about them. In relation to other sites (especially those of a religious nature) I feel that the science site rarely blocks commenters even those who lie with a determined forehead time and time again.

    6) Sometimes the continuation of the discussion with commenters with illegitimate responses sharpens the absurdity of their way of thinking. I hope that the intelligent readers who are not familiar enough with the topics discussed will be able to identify the gap between the rational commenters and those who rely on accepted facts and those who ignore, distort, lie and use crooked logic. Sometimes the blunt style helps to sharpen this point (especially when it is accompanied by a factual reference).

    Are you aware of the sarcasm you use from time to time?

  163. To Mr. Levana
    There are also some "celebrities who don't need proof".
    That is, a closed matter such as for example the earth's sphericity and not being flat or that our globe revolves around the sun and not the other way around).

  164. To Michael
    The religious do not pretend to represent the Torah.
    Religious people, meaning the ultra-Orthodox for that matter, have one thing above and beyond: "Torah study" which is actually studying the Gemara in yeshiva.
    They really don't care about the secular public in the sense that they do what they hate. They believe that this is the right way, the secular live in ignorance, in spiritual filth, their coffin is empty and more and more priestly.

    Everything you say is simply irrelevant to understanding the matter.

    And above all: that everything they have is not because they took, it is because they received.

    Your dislike of them, their behavior and more is simply not related to the reasons for the matter.

  165. Hello Camila,

    In response to my request for your definition of the concept of "legitimacy" you replied that:
    "A legitimate claim/opinion is one that at least does not contradict the accepted rules of the game in the field".
    The definition is also reasonable in my opinion.
    Later, you expanded the canvas in your three answers about those rules or rules of the game, so that we are left with a place to find out well what the "rules of the game" are and to whom exactly they are acceptable.

    Since I am only a guest here for a moment and do not know the guests of the place, I will ask a few additional questions:

    *4. Are you a content editor or have a position on the "Hidan" website, or are you a regular surfer with a lot of scientific knowledge?
    This is necessary for me to understand whether you are speaking on behalf of the site or because of your private opinions.

    5. I would also like to ask, what will be done to someone who drives in a way that is not legitimate?
    On the face of it, it is evident that there is a place for denying the rights of those who return and violate the accepted norms.
    In an internet context, as here, this can be expressed in deleting messages or blocking the surfer.
    6. Giving too much attention to those surfers may encourage them to continue with unwanted behavior, isn't it?

    (* I am listing a number of points and questions that arise in order to facilitate our reference to them later, if we so wish)

    Until I receive your answer to the above-mentioned question 4, I asked to adhere to the accepted rules of the game, as you said, in "Hidan" through the "Terms of Use" page of the website:
    To my great surprise, there is no proper mention at all of the subject of the content norms worthy of expression in the site's talkback system (and I am making a distinction here, which I see as necessary, between the articles compiled by the site's system, and the talkbacks which are compiled by the various site visitors) . On the other hand, I found a number of explicit clauses concerning the norms of behavior required of surfers, including:
    - "You must not upload content or links to talkbacks, which contain a threatening, blatant, racist, or insulting character, such that offends others.."

    This document also provided an answer to the above question 5, regarding the policy of this site in response to illegitimate behavior:
    - "Messages will be deleted or edited in which blatant or rude language is used, which may offend or harm other surfers on the site"
    - "A surfer who behaves contrary to any of his obligations and as detailed above - will be blocked, the content he uploaded - will be removed, and the Hidan site will be entitled to block him and prevent him from browsing the site and consuming services through it. A surfer who has been removed by the science website and/or denied access will not be allowed to come back and surf even under a different username."

    Is it possible that the "Hidan" website outlines a policy in which your content is defined as illegitimate?
    If there was no error, then this is very worrying, since it puts your scholarly content and that of a number of other educated and regular commenters starring in this discussion at risk of deletion, and even puts your very existence here in doubt. If I can take your place, how can I enrich myself with your great knowledge? I hope that your entry here will not be blocked, it would be a sad loss for all of us.

    It's short, and I'll finish with that,

    post Scriptum.
    "Based on known facts (as published, for example, in scientific newspapers or facts that are "among the famous""

    In a framed article, I assume that in your statement "among the famous" you are referring to Rambam's division between the "intelligent" and the "famous". It seems that you meant to say "intelligent", which are what was distinguished as truth and not a lie, and not "famous", which are what was distinguished as beautiful or obscene:

  166. Michael,

    Thank you for the clarification.
    I was still hoping for a macroeconomic insight that would help me critically view the detailed words of the former accountant general.
    Tens of thousands of people have already watched Zelicha's lecture, so if your words are true then you should formulate them in a professional and detailed manner (the reviews I read in the past were purely personal and did not deal with the message).
    Is your main argument that it doesn't really matter to the oligarchy if the economy prioritizes capital over labor and therefore the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox as employees and consumers is irrelevant for them?


  167. Joel:
    I don't accept your words but I'm just tired of all this nonsense.
    The ultra-Orthodox who claim to represent the Torah, despite all their Torah studies, have not yet understood the simple thing that old Hillel summed up as the entire Torah on one foot: "You shall not do what is hateful to you to your friend."
    Even if they hadn't guessed this in advance (which in itself requires divine stupidity) it should have become clear to them a long time ago that what they are doing to the secular public is exactly what is hated about them.
    They hate work and service in the army and they cause the secular population to be forced to do more in both areas.
    Anyone who is involved in this is a righteous person even according to the Torah, but he is protected by his own kind and postmodernist secularists.

  168. To Michael
    For example: Ben-Gurion's preference for a collusive relationship with the religious and the Jewish Zionists over a relationship with Mapam, because Mapam was then a threat to Mapai rule; For example, Begin's commitment to Lamphad after the 81 elections; For example, Netanyahu's preference to pay Shas a high price and not go to another arrangement with Kadima.

    You are confusing your personal assessment - moral or immoral - and between those who gave and could not give. When you separate everything will become clear.
    If a son of his parents at the age of 23 demands a luxury car as a condition for his studies, this is an immoral demand. The point is that if his parents give it to him, they are the ones who bear the responsibility for it. They are the ones who did the deed.

    And last: the abuse of trust is by the secular parties, who both sold and damaged the country. The ultra-orthodox, who are committed to their audience and in many cases not to the guests of this country, brought their voters what they promised to bring. In this matter, they also win morally.

    for Jubilee
    There is no such thing. What you propose will not work for a practical hour, contrary to the principle of majority rule.
    A party that wins the elections will not activate the state? So what did we do? The one you will run is the one that didn't win? And the opposite? The winning party forms a government - and who will allow it to operate in the legislative system, the competing party?
    The people elect the legislator, it represents them and it is responsible for the principles of action. Separation of powers is an executive matter. Although the judiciary is independent, it all relies on the word of the legislator. Although the government operates independently, it needs the Knesset's approval in principle.
    In separation of powers there is separation in action, but not in the source of authority.

  169. David:
    The time you waste is temporary.
    I said my words sarcastically because the demands of the ultra-Orthodox parties are clearly immoral and you are the one who claimed that these are the demands of the voters and not the demands of the members of the Knesset.
    One of the basic elements of a moral demand is that the state will not collapse if everyone demands it.
    The requirement to be exempt from work and the requirement to be exempt from the burden of security are not the same.
    The ultra-orthodox say they are moral and I am not, but not everything they say is true.
    I have a lot more to say about it, but it's late and your ears are deaf, so it's a shame

  170. You probably have a problem with reading comprehension if that is your conclusion or you are a cynic and I am wasting my time in dialogue with you.

    In the ultra-Orthodox sector, learning Torah is the center of life, etc.
    The ultra-Orthodox sectoral parties of course represent what is important to their voters.
    You want to call what they believe immoral. They also call you immoral
    It's a broken turntable of name calling with nothing coming out of it.

    Strange, if the big parties had principles - they would join the government according to your way.

    It's ridiculous how you make the secular parties into principled and moral ones (have you heard of the shakedown method?)
    And poor people who are being blackmailed by threats from the Russian mafia.

    Take responsibility for everything. Take responsibility! If you really want a change.
    If you just feel like hating and grumbling, you're on the right track.


  171. Rani, one more thing:
    Your words about the Trachtenberg Committee are - how to say - something different from the truth.
    I have already brought here the relevant section from Trachtenberg's conclusions regarding the employment of ultra-Orthodox and I will bring it here again:

    Besides, if someone who is not ultra-Orthodox wants to be "holy" according to Zelicha's nickname and decides not to work even though he is capable of it - he will get nothing! Only the ultra-orthodox can afford to behave in such a shameful manner.

  172. Rani:
    I will not provide because I have already doubted (exactly in the response that you quote partially on purpose) and your question is only intended to create a false representation as if I did not

  173. Gerty Cedar:
    The idea you are proposing is the original idea that existed at the time of the establishment of the state and then there was talk of neither a thousand nor ten thousand but only 400.
    But the ultra-Orthodox are ultra-Orthodox and the language of the Libra is the language of the Libra and the system of government is the one that has existed here since the establishment of the state and does not have the separation of authorities that Yuval suggests and that's how the four hundred grew and grew and grew and grew more than a hundred and fifty times (today 63,000 are included in the "Torah Artisano" arrangement and the rest italicized) .

    Although even one is a waste and in general, there should be a separation between religion and the state, but unfortunately this is not the case in the dream.

    The Torah book talks about the creation of the different species in the six days of Genesis.
    This is the basic belief advocated even today by the majority of the ultra-Orthodox, and quite a few debates have been held here on this site against this background.
    Sages really said more or less every possible nonsense
    The result is that in the religious writings one can find on many subjects the opposite and the opposite, and as needed the demagogues quote the opposite or the opposite as "Deat Torah".
    I have already written many times about sage beliefs in biogenesis and something reminiscent of evolution (but really crazy).
    You can read, for example, my response:

    I don't know what the Greek theories were about it. Do you know or are you just talking about them?

    No one asks where God is.
    It's not interesting.
    What's interesting is that they haven't found a role for him yet because everything happens without his help.
    Of course, there are also those who ask what he did during the Holocaust and why he does not take responsibility for the horror and resign.

    What you are saying, in other words, is that not only the ultra-orthodox parties lack basic morality, but all their voters do.
    I have to say that just meeting you pretty much convinces me that your claim is correct.

    Of course, the talk about hunger for power is wrong and many times, as I have already said, the big party that was entrusted with the formation of the government offered the other big party to join it and it - completely contrary to your claim - refused (gave up power for the sake of principles) but I already understood that the facts are not the basis of your claims and the truth is not In your eyes, any weight.

  174. Michael,

    "The very convincing explanation of Yaron Zelicha did not convince me or Dr. Michael Sharal"
    I would love to hear your theory in a reasoned way and how it contradicts the explanation of the former accountant general which is becoming very acceptable today according to the Centralization and Trachtenberg Committee.

    This is also what fascinated me about evolution versus creationism. Elegant and convincing explanations even if they are counterintuitive to blind brainwashing as the owners of the insurance companies know very well...

    I know you're on the right side, so you'll provide a convincing explanation for Zelicha's fundamental error. Smiley

  175. If the ultra-Orthodox parties did not demand what they promised their voters - they would be betraying their voters.
    What the secular parties are experts in.

    Failure of the ultra-Orthodox parties to comply with their mandate - for them it is immoral.

    The only reason the major parties (each in turn) preferred to form a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox and not with the second major party is the oldest reason in the world - hunger for power.
    With the major parties in the coalition, the party forming a government is not the owner of the house.

  176. Peace

    In the article she mentioned a premise that spontaneous creation contradicts religion.
    In my opinion, it is not true in the religious literature that it is common to think that lice were created from the "ifush", they are made from dirt and not from eggs.
    So for many years Jews lived with the belief that life can be created from inanimate substances and this did not contradict their religious belief.

    In short, the theory of evolution is closer to the religious belief in creation than the ionian theories that advocated an infinite primordial world. And to the question where is God? It is up to everyone to choose whether to signal it in their inner soul or in the great historical course from the creation of life to the present day.

  177. I once had a proposal, a kind of compromise that on the face of it should suit everyone.
    The State of Israel will establish two huge yeshiva, in Jerusalem and Safed. These two yeshiva will contain air-conditioned learning halls, libraries with the best Jewish literature, and well-equipped residences for the yeshiva's students and faculty. In these yeshivas, the great elites, the best sons of the Jewish people, will learn. They will study day and night, from six in the morning until twelve at night (as they claim they do today) and thus preserve the Jewish ember. Those students will live at the state's expense, with free housing and a living allowance. Ban them from any craft, sand studies, etc. They will be the "Patrol Matkal" of the Torah (as the Avrach divisions are called today). A limited and finite number of students can be admitted to these meetings, whether it is a thousand, or ten thousand, it doesn't really matter, but a finite number that will not change over time. There will be a strict admissions committee that will make sure that only the genius elites are accepted. Any other person who desires to learn Torah, should do so at his own expense and at the expense of his time! Just as we do in other countries. Anyone who is not admitted to those prestigious yeshiva will be required to do military service or national service, and frameworks will be adjusted for the ultra-Orthodox in both types of service. In order to make it easier for the ultra-Orthodox to integrate into the labor market, tax benefits will be granted to businesses that will employ ultra-orthedim, and to colleges that will teach ultra-orthedim required subjects.

    what do you think?

  178. Reinforcement of Michael Rothschild's words
    I have discussed politics with quite a few ultra-Orthodox, and in their view, their representatives in the Knesset are nothing more than servants of the ultra-Orthodox sector. Officials whose entire role is to benefit the ultra-orthodox sector according to the rabbis' instructions. An MK who does not perform his duties is removed from the list. Is it any wonder, then, that there is a phenomenon of delusional demands by ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset, such as bringing forward the winter time to match the Yom Kippur fast and bringing forward the summer time so that the children will be able to last through Seder night? (I was shocked when I heard this). I get the impression that there is some kind of competition between the ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset, who will serve their sector better while blatantly ignoring the interests of the rest of the public, and that many times "the cow wants to nurse more than the calf wants to nurse". That is, they exaggerate their demands and demand things that the ordinary Haredi on the street doesn't really need or want, and certainly won't make a fuss about it (for example, winter time)

  179. Joel!

    In the past I met with two party leaders who served as senior ministers in the government. Both are no longer alive. I submitted drafts to them. They answered me with exactly the same words, as if they were talking to each other: "This is not done anywhere. No one will agree."
    I guess they didn't like the idea of ​​parting with the force. Although the people's elected, as you say, but drunk from control.

    In the United States there is a better separation, but even there it is not perfect.
    In a correct separation there is no relationship between the authorities. A party that participates in the legislative authority will not participate in the executive authority. These are two different types of work that require people of different natures. The legislative authority should work with moderation and consensus while the executive authority should shoot from the hip.

  180. Joel:
    1. I agree - and the power was in the hands of the ultra-orthodox - they were the tip of the scales and they were the ones who could go with whoever raised the price because they had no principles that opposed the principles of the secular parties.
    2. My explanations are consistent with history. Give me one reason to think otherwise. I gave many reasons for my words. The agenda of each of the blocs was known and my words are based on it. Can you reason or are you just making a statement?
    3. What exactly are "political" preferences? If they are meant to maintain the policy then I agree. otherwise not. Many times opposition parties were called to join the government and they refused - not because of cases but because of principles. When they did not refuse - like the recent labor, they had to compromise on their principles and sometimes fell apart as a result. Since the retirement was a well-known scenario - even in these cases, the founders of the government made sure to include the ultra-Orthodox.
    4. I explained my reasons for the weighting I do. You initially absolved the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility (without justification), then you said you didn't (without matching history) and now you bargain using disparaging expressions and again without justification.

    The difference between twisting the facts (in your claim that you did not absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility) and explaining the situation is a sharp difference.
    The first is a correct claim of mine and the second is your demagoguery (what situation are you talking about and what explanation?! You said they are not responsible and then you said you didn't say that. This is a distortion of facts and not an explanation of a situation).

    The ultra-Orthodox didn't get anything they didn't ask for and I explained that. Immorality is actually the requirement. Agreeing to the demand is a compromise and I assure you that the secular parties would have preferred the ultra-Orthodox to join the coalition without demands. This is the last time I repeat things. If you continue to give arrogant and empty answers, I will decide how to respond, but I don't think I will try to explain such trivial things again.

  181. To Michael
    1. Responsibility is in the hands of those who have the ability. 2. Your explanations regarding the reasons that motivated the parties, what to do, do not really match the history of the State of Israel. 3. These were not errors of judgment, these were political preferences, and some of them really have nothing to do with a security agenda or anything. 4. You want more weight to be given to religious "responsibility" and less to secular, so please. Weigh whatever you like. It has nothing to do with the facts.
    What the religious wanted is in line with their worldview, and they owe you and no one anything but their voters and especially the opinion leaders there.

    And again, and don't get confused: all they have is the fruit of the secular act. They received, they did not take. They wanted to receive according to their view, the seculars gave them contrary to their view. Capish?

    You too easily confuse "distortion of facts" and an explanation of the situation (and there are a few more problems, but we'll leave it at that).

    for Jubilee
    How can the Knesset not be subject to coalitional considerations, when this is the essence of the parliament?
    After all, almost every parliament elects a government according to the principle practiced here. It has nothing to do with the separation of powers, which is a different matter.
    There is no place where the executive authority is elected except the USA - and even then the approval of the elected body is needed.
    Both there and in other places with a presidential regime, the parliament approves the composition of the operations.
    The parliament is the direct and only representative of the sovereign, aka the people.

  182. The system of government is the one that gives small pressure groups a share of the budget and privileges that are significantly larger than their proportion in the population. They used to be called "the parties of the tongue of the scales". Since then, the scales have shrunk and the tongue has grown fat.
    In my opinion, the blame should be placed on the lack of separation of powers. When we elect our representatives to the Knesset, we elect the legislative authority. But the legislative authority establishes the executive authority from within itself. If there was a proper separation of powers, we would directly choose the executive authority ourselves and save the big circus of establishing the Goeliatia.
    Did you say constitution? When the Knesset will not be subject to coalition considerations, a constitution will be enacted in the blink of an eye.

    And why do you say that Levi Eshkol did nothing? He actually did quite a bit for corruption

  183. Levi Eshkol:
    There is indeed a lot of love between us.
    This was also the case in Duroch (if you are the conjured prime minister).
    But the main problem is the fact that Israel does not have a constitution that defines it as a defensive democracy.
    This problem was easier to solve in your generation but you and your friends neglected it and today the situation is almost lost because the anti-democratic parties (which in a defensive democracy were supposed to be outlawed) are gaining more and more power with their womb and our money.
    Ben Gurion actually understood this and sent it to you A letter on the matter.

    Why didn't you do anything?

  184. Rani:
    Yaron Zelicha's very convincing explanation did not convince me or Dr. Michael Sharal - Head of the Economics and Research Division of the Harel Insurance and Finance Group.
    All the companies I worked for in the past were founded by people who had an idea or a vision in one field or another and none of them were connected to the oligarchs.
    In every large group of people there will be some entrepreneurs who can create jobs for the others - whether it serves the oligarchs or whether it hinders them.

    I very much hope that the ultra-orthodox will be integrated into the labor market in the future.
    I also very much hope that this will not involve giving up military service.

  185. Kinderlach!
    I read here that you have corruption in power. How? After all, your country is supremely democratic. You the voters determine the government.
    And if the government is corrupt, it is not because you, the voters, are corrupt*

    * or love

  186. Michael,

    According to Zelicha's very convincing explanation, the current situation in which there is a shortage (in relation to developed countries) of about half a million jobs is faithfully served by an oligarchy that has expropriated the economic system from the state.
    The oligarchy has narrow capitalist considerations according to which it prefers capital over labor.
    In a situation of lack of competition and a shrinking market, it is possible to fire workers, lower salaries and make products more expensive, which increases the profits of the oligarchy.
    Also, such a situation of capital-policy creates a kind of "natural selection" in which it is not "payable" for the ultra-Orthodox to work, and this is compared to the situation abroad where they work.
    The state today is beginning to invest resources in encouraging the ultra-Orthodox to enter the labor market, for example by requiring the study of core subjects.

    The Ministry of Education's report clarifies the problem - the Education Ministry's plan to integrate ultra-Orthodox in the labor market:

  187. And I will add more, Yoel, that it has never happened that a secular party begged an ultra-orthodox party to take money or privileges.
    The only thing the secular parties wanted from the ultra-Orthodox was for it to join the coalition.
    The money and privileges were the price demanded by the ultra-orthodox and secular parties, and had no choice (in their view) to pay.

  188. Joel:
    Please don't get involved in twists of facts.
    Your response that started the argument between us says (and I quote):
    "All that the religious received, they received from the secular.
    All that the seculars gave, no matter how serious it is for the current state of the country and its future, they gave for the establishment of a coalition.
    They are the only ones responsible for this.
    So you say on your own keyboard that the secularists are the only ones responsible.
    Doesn't this absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility?
    Let me answer for you: it is!

    Therefore, don't tell me that you didn't absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility, because you did absolve them of responsibility.

    That's why I argued with you.

    I also explained why the behavior of the secular parties should be seen with a certain leniency and I will try again because I see that it has not been absorbed.

    The secular parties in both blocs estimated that the main threat to the country is related to its foreign relations and security.
    In each of the two blocs it was also believed that following the path proposed by the other bloc would bring upon us an unparalleled disaster.
    The problem of radicalization and the immoral claims of the ultra-Orthodox were seen in both blocs as a secondary problem because all in all it is better to live and lose some money to immoral extortionists than to keep the money and die.

    In light of the above, the two blocs did not agree to unite with each other (and compromise on their way of dealing with the foreign and security problems) while the union with the ultra-orthodox parties - even though they understood that it was immoral - seemed to them to be a better price to pay in order not to become extinct.

    Government was not guaranteed to any of the blocs without the ultra-Orthodox.
    Here we are talking about considerations of balance language after the elections as well as considerations of promises to rabbis in order to influence the religious and ultra-orthodox public even before the elections.

    In the framework of their wrong assumptions, this is a responsible and considered decision.

    In my opinion - the mistakes they made are stupid but not immoral.

    The ultra-orthodox parties, on the other hand, acted immorally in every aspect.
    They demanded the preference of their electorate over the rest of the country's residents in all material fields, and they also made sure to create a situation in which their electorate would be imprisoned in an education of ignorance that would make it very difficult for him to integrate into the productive society if, God forbid, the conscience that they were so careful to suppress would arise in him.

    In short - I am angry at both these and those and you - when you say that I should only be angry at the secular parties, you again absolve the ultra-orthodox parties from blame even though at the beginning of the response you said that you do not clear them of responsibility.

    Although I am angry with both the secular and the ultra-Orthodox, I treat moral flaws more seriously than errors in judgment.

  189. To Michael
    A. Read.

    B. Does not absolve the ultra-orthodox of responsibility, but that is irrelevant - they are committed to their world view and that of their voters, and this is not necessarily in line with the interests of the state. In their view, general education is bad, only religious education is good. What liability do you want them to find out here? Why don't they believe him?

    Responsibility is a relevant concept here for those in whose hands the power is given. So that's it, they didn't show responsibility but lawlessness.
    And this also includes those who chose them and did not include this matter in the equation.

    Look: one of the sacred things in the Zionist/Israeli story is service in the army; The willingness of the super-patriotic parties to exempt the ultra-Orthodox - on the large scale that has been practiced here since the XNUMXs - in order to gain a political identity says it all.
    And if it is, and if uniform education is not - then what is the difference between you and a few shekels to get a stable coalition?

    In short: the object of your anger should not be the religious, but rather the secular parties. It's probably hard for you, but you'll get over it

  190. David:
    I forgot to tell you that while the expressions I use are correct and justified, your comparison between me and the Nazis - not only is it much more serious than what you are trying to treat me with, but it is completely baseless.

  191. Rani:
    What exactly is "convenient to exclude the ultra-Orthodox from the labor market"?
    Does anyone even want to exclude them? Have you heard of a case where someone was not hired because he was ultra-Orthodox?

    The truth is that, in my opinion, there are many ultra-Orthodox who would actually like to work, but because they do not want to serve in the IDF (where people kill themselves for real and not in a tent of Torah) they do not go to work (because they know that if they go to work they will lose the status of "Torah is his art" and will be required to serve in the IDF.

    In other words - there is a way to make many more ultra-Orthodox work if they are unconditionally given up on military service.
    It is, of course, immoral, and therefore wrong to do so.

    It is also clear that if they were workers, they would only be able to perform simple jobs because the school did not train them for work that requires knowledge and thought.

  192. David, the ultra-Orthodox's budgets look for a thousand different types, the budget for his teachings and art is only the smallest of them.
    By the way, the mathematical hocus pocus that you employ is also employed by the Daily Capitalist blog at NRG. If we call them, it was considered that the tycoons need assistance from the relief office, mostly because they have nothing and just want to take from them. In twisted mathematics you can prove anything

  193. Michael, I agree with your insights, but also Yaron Zelicha well established the claim that a system has developed here according to which it is very convenient to exclude the ultra-Orthodox from the labor market.
    A good proof is Dr. Reuven Gal's distinction: "Abroad the ultra-Orthodox work for a living because there they are not granted allowances, and they lead an equally ultra-Orthodox lifestyle."

  194. David:
    You don't read my words and yet you allow yourself to comment on them.
    It is clear that this is according to the law - otherwise they would have been banned.
    The problem is that their parties make sure to enact clearly immoral laws!
    What you say about distorted budgets is only the tip of the iceberg.
    What about children's allowance, with social security, with exemption from fees, with balance grants, with funding of city rabbis, with the fact that every citizen pays taxes and they don't. With the funding of training institutions where you don't learn anything useful....
    There is a lot more and the canvas is too short to list.

    My words are not a matter of style.
    I use words that I think best describe the situation.

    By the way - no one is proposing to prevent them from living as they want and believing whatever nonsense they want.
    The only requirement is that they do it at their expense and not at my expense.

  195. Machel

    If there is theft of property and risking the other's life - sue them in court.

    We do not live in a communist country that a person is born to benefit the country

    "The average Israeli citizen pays more to the state than he receives from it." - and that is why the public protest arose this year.

    The budget for his teachings and beliefs is 100 million NIS out of the 35 billion NIS of the education budget.

    The Torah is not important to you. For this sector it is their whole world.

    post Scriptum
    Your writing style: "parasite" "taming" "thieves" "robbers" etc. is very reminiscent of the style of people in the very unsympathetic past.
    Stop it from Kal.

  196. David:
    I really don't have the strength to get into the broken turntable you are trying to build here.
    The immorality of stealing another's property and risking another's life are, in my eyes, universal values ​​that even the ultra-Orthodox training should not have erased from a person's mind (who comes from birth with these values ​​due to the nature of the evolution he has undergone).
    No logic or morality can justify their claim that they are useful to the state in something.
    The average Israeli citizen pays more to the state than he receives from it.
    An ultra-orthodox citizen whose teachings are his art only accepts.
    If you read what I wrote in the previous comments you will see that everything you bring up here has already been answered.

  197. Joel:
    I think you didn't read my words.
    I do not clear the secular parties (which I did not choose) from responsibility.
    I am simply resentful that you clear the ultra-orthodox parties that acted in an obviously immoral manner (as opposed to the secular parties that acted irresponsibly and out of a wrong assessment of the threats) from responsibility.
    That's why ignoring the facts (including the content of the comments I wrote - even if you don't agree with it - the fact is that I wrote it) is precisely yours.

  198. Machel

    Yes, they have different values ​​than yours (and mine) - they are allowed.
    Yes, their sectoral parties represent what is important to them - which is natural and normal.
    (And I wish this was what happened with secular parties)

    And on the topic of politics - don't go complaining but to your chosen ones. The power is *in their hands* and always has been.

    If you think that the ultra-orthodox receive more than their percentage of the population, that is not true

    You state that repentance is not a problem.

    The difficulties of life and the oppression of the middle class in Israel are directly related to the monopolies and corruption of capital and government

    Do you want the ultra-Orthodox to live according to your lifestyle? does not suit them
    Just as you are not interested in being ultra-orthodox.

    If so, what is the legitimate problem you point to the ultra-orthodox sector?
    If you could elaborate

  199. To the honorable Mr. Beloy
    A literary scholar will check if Shakespeare wrote the plays he signed. After he says no, relying on a great deal of primary and secondary material, the world of literary research will respond matter-of-factly to the arguments and findings.

    The book of the Torah will not be written that examines whether David wrote the Psalms (because it has already been established that he did), or indeed, the text of the Song of Songs refers to the love of the Knesset of Israel for Shekinah. Surely there will be no claim that this is, after all, something washed with hormones, RL.

    Will there be a rabbi who rejects the evil assertion that Nimrod - about whom it is said "He was a great hunter, before Jehovah" - was wicked, because it is written in Genesis XNUMX, that he even dares to contradict what is written in the Torah? No.

    Thousands of receipts of this type can be created. Torah literature lacks the basis for research and the advancement of knowledge: criticism. Because what was sacred and was canon is not subject to free discussion by those who accept these texts as canon.

    Freedom in the field of thinking is the foundation that exists in the academy, or the foundation that is absent in yeshiva (and this goes beyond the methods of study, the sources of knowledge, the breadth of the canvas, etc.).

    The human race - and yes, this includes Judaism as well - has not progressed one iota through yeshiva studies. why? Because beyond the Halacha matters that are relevant only to those who accept it, there is nothing beyond that.


  200. to camila
    The matter of religion and the state, the religious and broader grievance that the secular parties gave to the religious began in 1949. The religious parties upgraded their status and power in the 1977s, when the Likud and the Alignment had equal power and needed them, and when, already before, when Begin came to power (XNUMX) he was happy to give them what the Maainiki gave them grudgingly, also because it was traditional.
    The whole issue of corruption, the current situation, etc. is a result of the foundations that were laid down here for many decades. Like the permission for separate education, like the allowances, like exemption from military service. The point is that in the beginning it was a matter of small volumes, today it is no longer. Again: mainly since the eighties.
    If this was the most important thing for the seculars - to prevent the religious from having power in all areas - they should have worked together, that is: put this matter at the top of their list and compromise on other matters. For them, this is out of the question (areas, the nature of the economy, etc.).
    In addition: the section of a Jewish state, including the Law of Return, etc., gives religious people control over a very significant core element of this state's identity. Being the standard bearers in the field, they will certainly not be thrown to the fringes of the opposition.

    To Michael
    Being the fact-checkers and the ultra-Orthodox speaking of correct information, it is interesting that here you ignore a simple, factual, and incredibly technical matter: everything that the religious have is anchored in primary and secondary legislation and finds expression in the budget books. All of this is under the complete control of the forces leading the country in any given year, according to the secularists.
    When Sharon decided that he preferred change over them and went all the way, Netanyahu could have made several moves in this area.
    Your personal unsympathetic opinion (note the subtle expression) about the religious in this context, and your unwillingness to accept the substantial responsibility of the others, does not change the simple fact: it is the secular ones who gave. point.

  201. Itzik,

    I did not claim that the purpose of the site is to bring only a certain type of people, read again what I wrote. The opposite is true, this site contributes to everyone, literally everyone (as if he had blood type 0), through being a mouthpiece for proven facts and rational thinking, but not everyone can contribute (through it) and there are many commenters who illustrate this. Go back and model. Whoever is not ready to accept the simple (but not easy) rules of the game according to which the site plays, does not contribute anything to anyone. What is particularly outrageous is commenters who seem to be willing to accept the rules of the game in certain contexts but not in others (even though the science that deals with all these fields is based on the exact same rules of the game).

    You wrote: "Different opinions violate human thinking and cause the development of science. If every scientist who disagreed with his friend boycotted the other, we would still be in the Middle Ages."

    But obviously not every opinion is a violation, to claim that there is an intelligent planner because that is what seems most logical according to someone's gut feeling, it is not a violation, on the contrary, it stings because it is a statement that equates to the statement "I don't know how to explain it". Other opinions, which involve supernatural powers, also do not violate, because supernatural can be anything and can do anything, and hence it is also equivalent to saying: "I don't know how to explain it". In contrast to those whose contribution ends with the same statement, science says: "I don't know how to explain it at the moment, but I assume there is a natural solution to it, so I will offer explanations and test them." The experience of the past shows a multitude of phenomena that were not understood and for which claims are made regarding the involvement of supernatural forces, which are in fact completely natural. The only way that has led to this kind of understanding (which is usually backed up by matching technology) is through science, and as it is easy to see, you don't have to be a scientist to enjoy the violations of this understanding, but you have to be a real ungrateful person to spit into this source of living water even if you spit mostly into wells certain This is especially stupid when all the wells are drawn from the same source. There are more than enough ideas and opinions that are within the boundaries of the rules of the game that this site represents and everyone is welcome to express their opinion as long as the rules of the game are kept.

    You wrote: "The debate about yeshiva and universities is also unnecessary in my opinion, because the others will explain to you that all humanities departments are unnecessary and are equivalent to kollels and yeshiva"

    This is an unfortunate comparison. Although I come from the field of the exact sciences, I have had the chance to read quite a few works that belong to the field of humanities, and in general there is no comparison between this field and the studies and "research" in kollels and yeshiva for the simple reason that even literary criticism takes place within the scientific game that includes not only rational thinking but also ( and perhaps mainly) reference to the facts. From this point of view, it can be said that the content is of no interest to anyone, but the very existence of the rules of the game is priceless. I had the chance to see several works that came out of a Haredim seminary and I was horrified at how full of logical fallacies and fabrication of facts they are. In the best cases, on a point-by-point basis, there was a proper use of logic but based on practical stories that cannot be verified. Your comparison is sad, because it indicates the size of the gap in your understanding of the value of the scientific rules of the game even if they are not used to discover a cure for cancer. The only similarity between the two fields you mentioned is the lack of technological productivity that characterizes these fields, but still the comparison is unfortunate precisely because of the issue of the legitimacy of the opinions expressed there. For this reason, the department of linguistics, for example, is included in the university, but studies of Reiki or astrology are not.

  202. Itzik:
    It turns out that the facts are not important to you either.
    How can it be argued that someone who expects others to be killed in his place is a moral person who cares about his fellow man.
    How can it be claimed that someone who chooses to live at the expense of others is a moral and caring person.
    There is a limit to what it is possible to not understand and indeed people like Rabbi Halbertal and Rabbi Amslam are ultra-Orthodox who dared to say so accept with a committee.
    Anyone who crosses this very clear line is indeed a voluntary parasite.

    so true
    There are many ultra-Orthodox charities.
    But it is also true that the money for these enterprises (just like the taxes that go to the charity enterprise called the government of Israel) comes mainly from the secular (and by the way - if the government charities received more taxes - which would happen if all those able to work worked - there would be no need for ultra-orthodox charities ).
    Another true thing is that corruptions were often discovered in the ultra-Orthodox charities.

  203. Husham:
    Since your response shows that the facts do not interest you at all and you present fictions in their place - I will stop arguing with you.

  204. Joel:
    See the end of my response to David.
    By the way - the secular parties are more to blame for blindness than anything else.
    They didn't have to form a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox as a means to stay in office.
    They could form coalitions among themselves.
    They did not do this because they saw the differences between their views on foreign affairs and security as something more important than the risk of mixing religion and state.

  205. David:
    Your postmodernism has put you out of your mind.
    Most of the religious are not converts but simply people who were born religious.
    The increase in the religious percentage is due to a high birth rate.
    Repentance is not our serious problem.

    Now - we have a high correlation between the economic situation in the Kents and religiosity.
    What it means?
    This does not mean that a bad economic situation causes repentance (because as mentioned - there is very little repentance).
    It does mean that religiosity increases the chance of poverty.
    This is the correct statistical consideration.

    It is interesting that not only the statistics lead to the above conclusion.
    After all, it is clear that those who have not studied any profession relevant to our world will not be able to make a proper living in it, and the ultra-Orthodox communities make sure that this is the case among their children.
    Beyond that, they encourage the graduates to become parasites and present the youths as "the best of youth" and the workers as those who are unable to learn.

    I watched Yaron Zelicha's lecture a long time ago.
    With all due respect - he completely misses this point.
    Jobs are created by working people.
    If there are more ultra-Orthodox in the labor market - some of them will also create jobs.
    This was my conclusion when I watched the movie but to confirm it I also contacted a number of senior economists and they all confirmed my words.

    In relation to the sectoral parties - Knesset members should also have basic decency.
    It is true that religion cancels part of a person's decency, but not all of it.
    Never before has a member of the Israeli Knesset stood up and asked that immigrants from the former Soviet Union receive money for nothing (and it is not difficult to come up with "nothing". He could have demanded it in exchange for "the preservation of Russian culture", for example).

    As I said: there is a limit to blaming the guards and acquitting the thieves.

  206. Joel,
    It is true that the secularists are responsible for the situation created in this country (not only on the religious issue). In my personal opinion, the problem with the news is the corruption that has gradually infiltrated for years deep into the administration (both in the state institutions and in the local government). It's not that there hasn't been corruption in the past, but not at this level, not in its shameless form, and not corruption for corruption's sake. From this point of view, it is not the ordinary citizens, like you and me, whether they are secular or religious, who are usually corrupt, but the establishment, including the religious establishment, which exhibits an especially high level of corruption (see Shas for example). That's why the problem here is chained, the citizens are not doing their job faithfully which amounts to democracy at least with the right (which is mandatory in my opinion) to choose worthy candidates. A simple examination of the number of people who have been convicted, are in proceedings, etc. reveals a shocking situation that the largest parties (Likud, Kadima, Shas, Yisrael Beitenu) are also the most corrupt. Corruption of elected officials predictably leads to corruption in public office (due to the appointment of associates who lack any professional qualifications for example), and once this has happened it is very difficult to turn the wheel back.

    You are right about one thing, the religious will not bring about change. Not the ultra-Orthodox citizens, for example, and certainly not the ultra-orthodox establishment. Even today's elected officials will not change anything because to clean the stables you need integrity and professionalism and today's politicians are not elected for these qualities. The only ones who can make a real change are the citizens themselves, using the democratic tool that is so simple on the one hand, but powerful on the other hand, which is the ballot. In recent times we have witnessed a pathetic "social awakening", not because it is unjustified, but because most of the citizens, especially the weaker sections, have cooked this porridge for themselves, due to suicidal voting patterns. The changes that all these tremendous social energies are making are peripheral pruning, an appearance, and very far from root treatment precisely for the simple reason that the establishment is so rotten, cynical and has an elephant's skin for the condition and well-being of the citizens. Things will not change significantly without a change in the voting pattern, when citizens decide to put the integrity and professionalism of their elected officials at the top of the list of priorities. Unfortunately, I do not see such a change in the near future and I have opinions about the reasons for this (perhaps I will present them elsewhere on occasion). However, the responsibility of the citizens who choose time after time the most corrupt parties that exist does not remove the responsibility from those corrupt people (both the elected officials and the officials that the public does not directly elect). Still the same one who receives envelopes and the same one who hands out jobs without anything to do with proven professional abilities and so on, they are directly responsible for this sad situation, and the same is said about the corruption and religious violence in this country. Yoel I really hope you are not one of those who think that if a girl wore a tight dress then it is her fault that she was brutally raped. At most it can be said that she did not act wisely, but from here to accusing her of responsibility for the act of rape itself? It's shocking that many people still think that way, and it's just as shocking to me when people think that way about other vile acts in this world as well. You will not be able to clear the religious and especially the religious establishment of their responsibility, even if the seculars allowed it for many years, and still allow it.

  207. Indeed a confusion
    I wonder if there is also evolution in opinions and hatred

    One might think that if the ultra-orthodox had learned and believed in the theory of evolution, they would not have lived according to Rothschild. I happened to live for many years in the suburbs and was very involved in non-religious education and was privileged to... see the huge investments in the advancement of the residents of these areas so that they do not fall for the public.

    You won, and thank whoever you want and believe in, for being born in the right place, someone before you made decisions that break barriers and thanks to him you don't live a life of ignorance and ignorance and therefore today you are very useful to society and the environment. The poor other one whose parents have been here for 60 years are new immigrants and he barely has money for bread and that includes the ultra-Orthodox, the only thing he has is faith and you want your superiority to tear from him the only optimism in which he lives and tries to work on him that just change his faith and already his life will be like your life.

    This demagoguery and hatred is so unnecessary and unpromoting

    In the evolution in which I live, the size of the virtues is usually the size of the shortcomings and vice versa, it is clear that the ultra-Orthodox have a lot of shortcomings as a common society, but the virtues accordingly, only a believing person can be a guarantor and care for others, in his ignorance, his considerations in helping others are very unsophisticated, and his contentment with little can To serve as an example for the company that grew here.

    Most of the respondents do not know the other companies that produce here the great and amazing mosaic called the State of Israel or the people of Israel in general.

    The ultra-orthodox person is sure that he is learning and saving the people just like we are here, we are all sure that we are saving the people and if we take things personally and not as a cooperative society, I am not sure that anyone here has developed any medicine, we are all small screws in a very complex and incomprehensible machine and for every faith And thought has a place in the great machine

  208. Education from Wikipedia "is general knowledge that a person acquires during his life"
    Theology is taught at the university as in the beit midrash.

    There are Haredim who work and serve in the army and also pay taxes
    Not everyone who graduates from university finds a job. I have a few friends
    with a bachelor's degree who are overseas and pay taxes there.

    The state supports the unemployed who are not religious.

    Religion provides the state with a certain service
    It accepts into its ranks each of the converts
    Those who have experienced a crisis and are unable to get back on their feet
    the poor and abandoned crippled criminals.

    It all depends on the people, there is no unequivocal
    There are good here and good there, bad here and bad there.
    Weak here and weak there endanger here and endanger there.
    There are weaker and more poor people, that's how it is.

  209. To Michael
    The secularists didn't give a second thought, because they have always ruled here. The secular parties were ready to pay the price of establishing the coalition and maintaining it through the religious parties - also at the price of serious damage to the economy, education, equality and even the local holy of holies: service in the army.
    This is not a matter of thieves taking from the house what they did not receive from its owner after breaking into it. The opposite: not only were we invited, we even begged them to do so. The religious have always announced what their conditions are and what they will give in exchange for complying with them.
    True, it transfers the responsibility to the secular, but this is what has been going on here since the establishment of the state.

  210. Machel

    Your hatred has made you change your mind on this matter.

    The facts are very simple:

    The public usually turns to religion when their economic situation is poor.

    The serious economic problem in Israel (the poorest country in the West) is *not* related to the ultra-orthodox.

    Former Accountant General Prof. Yaron Zelicha, who was at the heart of the matter and was awarded the title of Knight of the Quality of Government on behalf of the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel, describes exactly what the problem is

    Sit and watch his lecture at the Technion from the end of 2009

    Regarding the ultra-orthodox parties in the Knesset,
    It is obvious that a sectoral party will push its agenda, that is the name of the game in democracy.
    One should be jealous of their voters who do not accept party members who betray them left and right, just as the secular elected officials do.

    You can only complain to your chosen ones - why they betray you time and time again.

  211. Husham:
    Your words are quite confused and it's hard to understand what you want.
    In any case, no education is acquired in the religious institutions. They buy ignorance and superstitions there.
    Indeed - those who study in a religious institution do not have to pay anything because the state (we) pays for them and also finances their livelihood.
    He stays in these places for many years (much beyond the duration of his university studies) and everything is at our expense.
    Since money doesn't grow on trees and a huge part of the money that is available is wasted on the ultra-Orthodox - the state does not have enough money to give the sane people a free higher education.
    Then come people who don't understand anything and blame - no less - the universities!
    It's that simple!

    Indeed, the secularists who give the other cheek are to a considerable extent to blame for the situation, but the ultra-orthodox are still more to blame for it.
    Saying that all the blame rests on the seculars is like claiming that those who are guilty of house burglaries are first and foremost the innocent citizens who did not protect their homes like Fort Knox and the police who do not catch the thieves.
    Even here - with all the contributing blame through the omission of others - the real ones responsible for the crime are the thieves after all.

  212. All that the religious received, they received from the secular.

    All that the seculars gave, no matter how serious it is for the current state of the country and its future, they gave for the establishment of a coalition.

    They are the only ones responsible for this.

  213. I really appreciate your honesty, Michael Rothschild
    Your wish to donate your income from statistics games
    And various bets against the earth's dismay.

    At the time, I already wrote here what it's like to study at the university
    It costs so much money to study in a yeshiva
    It's free

    So if you don't understand my opinion, you should
    problem :

    Each course at the Open University costs approx
    The 2300 shekels. The courses include lecturers, some of whom are good
    And some don't.

    If you did not pass the test you will have to pay about half the amount
    to learn again.

    Let's say that I'm not that self-taught, so I need a bus
    Go back and forth to the study centers.

    Let's say that I prefer a study center that is far from a place
    My residence to get a specific lecturer who is also good.

    Assuming that the synagogue / Midrash is far from my place of residence
    About (300 meters) Gemara studies are held
    Every day by a nice and sympathetic lecturer who does not require full attendance
    Or passing stress tests and studying with him are interesting
    Even if you do not completely comply with the principles of science
    And usually refreshments and drinks are also served.

    Who wins the sales promotion?

    Another point:
    The religion holds that those who study Torah do not need to work
    And you provided for all the others who don't study.

    Let's compare it to the academics you made a living from
    State account.

    The question is over:
    Why don't the clergy hide their textbooks these distribute
    The textbooks in every synagogue are free, there is no money
    And they have teachers every 300 meters and to the Tel Aviv University library
    You have to pay to look at the books if they even let you.
    Where is the free education of the scientific professions?

    One logical answer is that there are enough students for the professions
    The goddess and the university cannot take care of the rest they will receive
    Adequate education

    So it seems to me quite necessary that the state of Tel Aviv should be all scientists
    And in the periphery there will be rabbis and people who practice religion.

    So Michael, before you come and accuse the clergy of panic
    The world might want to check what the universities and the state have done
    For those who initially wanted to acquire the scientific education
    And for various reasons, some of them also financial, they finally chose the theological education.

  214. Fun to live in illusions!
    The discourse is so non-violent that it managed to create in the country a class of slaves and guards (the donkey of Messiah) against a class of idlers.
    He is so non-violent that he is used to make crazy laws on every issue in the country.
    He is so non-violent that the sector that should bow down to him uses hymns such as "Advise and sew", holds demonstrations "he is entitled" to the release of criminals, hides child abusers from the law authorities, takes over the education system and shamelessly talks about a "full cart" versus an "empty cart" ".

    Continue to turn the other cheek (and demand that the last remaining sane ones do the same) and hope for the best.

    At the local level, such hopes have already destroyed Beit Shemesh, Racsim, Yavnal, large parts of Jerusalem and much more - and the hand is still tipped.

  215. Thank you Yuval.

    I think we have more to do than wait and hope for the best.
    Mahatma Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in your world".
    We can shape the reality in the present and in the future, either by active activity, or by setting a personal example.
    Even now, at this moment.

    And one more quote, clear and very much loved by me, and I wish it would find its way to the following website:

    "There will be no victory of light over darkness,
    As long as we don't stand for the simple truth,
    that instead of fighting the darkness, we should increase the light"
    - Aaron David Gordon

  216. cedar! Your words are beautiful. There is no doubt that the State of Israel is a paradise in the heart of the Middle Eastern desert. Will the enlightened culture spread out of Israel or will the Levantine culture conquer Israel? Only future generations knew that. In the meantime there is not much left but to hope.

  217. I have already seen Sam Harris' lecture before. It is long but beautiful. Highly recommended for those who comment here who have an hour and a half to spare.

  218. jubilee,

    In the heart of the Levant, we created a Western country, with science and technology qualities that most of our neighbors (and I'm not just talking about the immediate circle, but also our neighbors in Europe) can only envy them. We produce literature, patents, medical equipment, satellites, water purification methods, advanced agriculture, groundbreaking research and more.
    Besides technological progress, there is democracy here, awareness of human rights, rule of law where even a president can find himself behind bars, social awareness of the quality of the environment, a very lively social discourse and yet, unlike our neighbors, non-violent.

    There is no doubt that we are a fascinating and very unusual spot in the local landscape.
    If we succeeded in all of the above, and we would like to, the hand is still tilted.

  219. jubilee:

    Islam flourishes in London much more and gains more legitimacy there.

    Besides, I didn't say that New Jersey residents shouldn't hear Sam Harris' talk.

    I come back and suggest you watch Sam Harris' lecture.
    In fact I beg you to do so (and this is directed at all readers of this comment - not just you)

  220. In Britain it is very easy to punish, and even severely, traffic offenders, simply because there are not many of them.

    And as for Islam, I have good news for all its fans. It blooms beautifully in Jersey too.

    I'm not sure it's that simple. The State of Israel was located in the heart of the Levant. What can be built in cold Europe is not easy to create in our warm country.

  221. jubilee:
    The comparison is out of place.
    I guess in London they also punish traffic offenders.

    One of the differences you mentioned between London and New Jersey is that Islam also flourishes in London.

    The whole culture of turning the other cheek is the postmodernist seed sown in Christianity.

    As a supplement, I suggest you also watch the lecture at the following link:

  222. jubilee,
    Culture is something that depends on location and period, and is often quite stable, and yet, it is not destiny.
    If enough people want to live differently, pockets of subculture may be created, in which there are other norms.
    Sometimes these pockets grow to the norm in many days.

  223. I own a car and drive it on UK roads. We are very strict with the law, do not honk for no reason and show courtesy wherever possible (for example, "asking for permission" before crossing a lane, receive flashing lights to signal that the request has been approved, and respond with thanks by briefly turning on both signal lights). In short, a pleasure.
    A few months ago I was driving the roads of New Jersey. When I showed kindness, they thought I was psychotic. In the recesses of my memory there is still a traumatic image of the driving situation on Israeli roads.
    I project this on the culture of the discourse.

  224. jubilee:
    And one more thing needs to be understood: the origin of vanity beliefs is not in logic but in emotion created as a result of brainwashing.
    Logic is not enough to eradicate them (after all, if logic were enough, none of the debates on religious grounds would have taken place here in the first place)

  225. jubilee:
    When someone is talking nonsense, in my opinion, I will continue to tell them that they are talking nonsense.
    When someone does this systematically and while repeatedly ignoring the things that are said to him - I will allow myself to resort to more harsh ways of expression.
    When the repeated lies and nonsense are used to justify other vile acts I will be even more determined.

    All the ways of pleasing with the superstitions led us to the Hebrews of Phi Pahat and that is where we are today.

  226. white cedar:
    When you stop being condescending and when you get down from your postmodernist tendency, it will make sense to answer you.

  227. You will wonder about the relationship between a person and his friend (I would appreciate your opinions):

    There are commenters here who regularly embarrass themselves, probably without being aware of it, at the level of style and content of their words.
    I wonder what would do them more kindness, to leave them in ignorance at ease or to politely reflect on how ridiculously they present themselves.

  228. Itzik Beloy:
    Although all the annoying things must be taken care of, I did not mention all of them, but only those that, if not taken care of, will lead to the destruction of the country.

    Your comparison of the funding of the ultra-Orthodox to the funding of cultural institutions is incredibly ridiculous - you cannot compare the magnitudes at all - you are just trying to throw sand in our eyes.

    I don't know what taxes you are talking about. If an ultra-Orthodox receives money from the state, then the fact that he returns a small part of it in taxes does not make wasting money on his swag economically beneficial. He just remains damage.

    Vanity beliefs are what underlies the illusion of the ultra-orthodox that what they get from the state they really deserve.
    These beliefs also prevent them from learning and understanding the world as it is and becoming productive citizens.

    I knew beforehand how to score your name, but your words annoyed me, so I played with the letters without considering the score.

  229. "Because I finance (myself and my whole family including the faraway, ultra-Orthodox and working hard for their livelihood, most of them pay above average taxes) the IDF's waves and the theaters and the humanities and the museums and and and..., don't forget that those who enjoy these institutions are less from the ultra-Orthodox numerically and their contribution is not as certain as you think"


    Bottom line, if the ultra-Orthodox grow at the current rate and they continue not to work (there are always those who work, it doesn't change the general picture) - the situation of all of us will be on the rocks, and this is what the governor of the Bank of Israel says.

  230. With apologies for once again taking care of the little things:
    "It is very difficult for me to understand, what bothers the "scientists" so much that it is so difficult for them to live with different beliefs of the other"
    This questioning can be expressed by replacing subject with object and it will also be relevant in its new form. It is indeed less prominent in Judaism in Israel than in Islam in Iran, but it exists.

    In itself, this is a very interesting question. Why, really, is it difficult for a person to listen to the faith of the other?
    And here I would like to elaborate a little on the phrase "tilt your ear". The ears are used not only for hearing but for the perception of balance. A.Z.N. It is the root of the words "balance" and "balance". Tilting the ear, obviously, throws the person out of balance.

  231. Style Note:
    "You are talking nonsense" is a rough statement, which has probably become an integral part of Israeli conversational culture. But to take the name of your interlocutor (and it is not a nickname that he chose for himself, but rather his real name) and make him a hucha and italula - this already borders on rudeness.

  232. jubilee
    I just don't bother with it, because every question has an answer, including a "scientific" one by ultra-Orthodox scientists, I don't deal with anyone's beliefs unless the belief is to treat the one who doesn't believe.

    There are many issues that haunt normal people, not everything must be dealt with, it is better to look ahead and move forward, dealing with beliefs is not part of it.

    If I write the requested reasons, we will really move on to a completely different topic, for a small example, because I finance (me and my whole family, including the faraway, ultra-Orthodox and work hard for their livelihood, most of them in Israel pay above average taxes) the IDF's waves and the theaters and the humanities and the museums and you and you and..., don't forget that those who benefit from these institutions are fewer than the ultra-Orthodox numerically and their contribution is not as certain as you think, neither in the army nor in the economy nor in anything like the ultra-Orthodox, this issue is also more religious and not scientific, it has never been done Here is an honest and reliable examination of who donates how much and why and who receives how much and why (see the rattle donors).
    It is very difficult for me to understand, what bothers the "scientists" so much that it is so difficult for them to live with the different beliefs of the other, you really harm the intelligence when you eliminate all the grandmother's and nature's medicines, most of the medicines in the world even today are faith medicines (you live in the West which is the minority in the world).

    My last name is punctuated in a dream, I am very proud of my family that built this country and carried the burden required for your right to the land for thousands of years and I hope that you fit your glorious family name (this level is not suitable for a "scientific" discussion).

  233. Itzik:
    No one is looking for controversial issues but these issues haunt the normal people.
    Can you point me to one reason why I would finance the families with many children of people who choose to be idle in the Torah tent?
    Is there a single reason why I would send my children to fight for parasites that don't stick a finger?

    And in the matter of beliefs - you believe in nonsense.
    Also the claim that the world was created five seconds ago when in the minds of all the people planted false memories as if they lived for a long time cannot be refuted - so is this a reason to believe it?
    These beliefs have not yet used the human race for anything. No medicine was developed using them and no technology that improves our lives.
    They are based on ignorance and cause the preservation of ignorance.
    In short: as you are, Itzik Beloy - so are your beliefs.

  234. Itzik asked me to you

    Since you said, and I believe you spoke honestly, "I have a belief of generations that has not yet been scientifically disproved, until then allow me to have my beliefs that are really not related to science", I am curious to know what a claim that contradicts your belief does to you? For example, if you believe that the stories of the creation of the world and man in the first chapters of Genesis describe a real reality, but a person like me approaches you and proves that according to his (scientific) method, this is not the case.

  235. Happy new year to everyone

    The issue of "who created" and "how did he create" are philosophical issues, the proof that this is how it works today still does not make the matter a science, and certainly not a proof, with me there is no "it cannot be that he did not plan" I have a belief of generations that has not yet been scientifically denied and So let me be with my beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with science.
    Gali is right, the debate is indeed about the creation of life, and still science uses theories and you have to "allow" for other theories of faith, for example, every faith stands no less than any "theory", but I don't understand why you think it "annoys" the believers of the faith, from reading Here it becomes clear that the "nerves" are precisely in the theory holders who find it difficult to accept a different opinion and thinking, because it is a religion or for any other reason.

    Since in my opinion the issue is religious and not scientific, I think the debate is quite stupid, what is certain is that today the processes are evolutions and even today in these processes, our knowledge is very nil and limited and most likely in the coming generations the conclusions of today will change many times.

    I have never forced a ghost or anyone to believe in my beliefs and I am sure that my views and beliefs are very legitimate, and those who have a hard time with different opinions prove themselves to be illegitimate.

    I hope I'm not wrong, but the purpose of "Hidan" is to bring knowledge and innovations in science to the whole public (I really like the site even though I don't agree with everything), I find it hard to believe that the purpose is to bring only a certain type of people, different opinions violate human thinking and factors in the development of science, if every scientist who disagreed with his friend would excommunicate the other, we would still be in the Middle Ages today.
    The debate about yeshiva and universities is also unnecessary in my opinion, because the others will explain to you that all humanities departments are unnecessary and are equivalent to kollels and yeshiva, the main problem in my opinion is in the constant search for the issues in dispute instead of in common, and this is exactly what I am trying to explain, today there are hundreds if not hundreds in all fields of science Thousands of people believe that they are doing well with their faith, if they don't grind water in how it all started and when, they investigate with today's tools according to today's knowledge and with great success.
    That's why I really liked Erez's main article despite the things I disagree with about him.

  236. By the way, to be clear, not only many of the deniers of evolution express illegitimate positions (as defined in my previous response), also many who hold New Age worldviews and serial conspiracies, oh, and also many of the crazy. They all have in common the fact that they play games with different rules, it's fascinating to see people who act like this but there comes a point where it becomes boring or even dangerous, especially when they try to claim actual knowledge of this world. Personally, I don't know of any other game other than the science that rigorously reaches insights into how this world works (and technology respectively). It is not for nothing that it is difficult to find reliable technology developed by ultra-Orthodox (anti-missile psalms?), New Agers (reading crystals?) etc. Even in criminals, you can sometimes find such technologies to the point of actual scientific thinking, for the simple reason that they have to deal with reality and to break into a safe, for example, you need something more certain than reading fortunes with a ball in a dolch or skipping letters in the Bible. At least in this respect I appreciate them more.

  237. white cedar,

    The questions are short but that does not guarantee short answers. I will try to be brief even if it is at the cost of oversimplification and a reference that in my opinion is more relevant to the discussion that will be made here (ie prepare for a long answer...:-)).

    That. What is legitimacy in your eyes?
    A. A legitimate claim/opinion is one that at least does not contradict the accepted rules of the game in the field. On a religious site, the rules of the game will of course be different from those used on this site for example. The science website, by its very purpose of bringing information and news on scientific topics to the public's attention (although it does not claim to be scientific itself in the "hard" sense of the term) accepts scientific rules of the game in a broad, readable sense - based on known facts (as published, for example, in scientific newspapers or facts that they are "among the famous" as well as rational thinking (and especially on the basis of valid logical arguments). When someone makes a claim that is clearly based on ignorance, ignorance of known facts or on logical failures, he can be seen as mistaken and then it would be good if one of the commenters points to it A flaw in the argument. A person is allowed to make a mistake (either out of ignorance or out of misunderstanding), but after the error has been explained and the same commenter continues with this type of argument, in my opinion, his responses from this moment on are no longer legitimate. When the responses are accompanied by other characteristics such as repeatedly ignoring clarification questions that have a connection direct to the problems that arise from those problematic claims, or a gross distortion of the words of other commenters to the point of telling outright lies, not only are the comments themselves no longer legitimate, but the commenter himself is no longer legitimate in the sense that he showed an agreement with a committee that he does not intend at all (and may not can) play a fair game. I never treated the commenters as if they were illegitimate (in my eyes, of course) when they put forward arguments based on facts, presented rational thinking, and created the impression that they were really trying to deal objectively with the criticism directed at them by other commenters (under the same rules of the game).

    That. What is the danger in denying evolution over this site?
    A. In a world where resources are limited and competition is tough, and where our future and that of our child depends on the abilities and skills we possess, including the level of education, the communication skills with external parties, the scientific and technological level, skills that have a profound effect on the economy, health and security of the State of Israel, it is of great importance where the payer's money flows The taxes and in which contents and activities the state encourages. From the comparison of the contribution (the one that is visible and measurable in some way) of, for example, the Abrachi kollim to their rabbis and the students and research students to their professors, both in terms of the research itself and in terms of other productive and creative circles (such as military service, social activity that is not sectoral) I believe that the contribution of the latter increases immeasurably on those of the former. Of course, if you include a contribution that cannot be measured, then there will be those who will argue otherwise, but then Oren Zarif is probably the most significant figure in this country and it is best to just pour most of the budgets into him. Unfortunately, the State of Israel is getting more and more anxious. Unfortunately, the skills (including in the moral dimension by the way) that many members of this population display, as mentioned, not only do not result in a significant contribution, but in some areas they even constitute a real obstacle and lead to a situation where many of this population are a burden and a burden on society. There is a well-oiled establishment that engages in baby captivity and driving innocent citizens towards religion. In front of this establishment there are few attempts, too few it should be noted, to present an alternative. This site, although not in its main definition, represents such an alternative for those babies who have fallen, or for those who are at the beginning or in the middle of the process of deterioration and who nevertheless still have some basic kernel of curiosity, a pursuit of factual knowledge and rational thought. For those people, discussions of this kind, and more precisely the positions that are based on the rules of the scientific game, may be a real lifeline. There is no fundamental difference between the denial of evolution on this site, and the denial of other science foundations. There is also no essential difference (in the context of the rules of the game I mentioned) between this denial and the denial of the Holocaust. In all these cases the deniers are required to behave outside the rules of the legitimate game as defined earlier. Simply put, these denials are tiny battles in the daily war over people's worldview. Any such discussion on this site is almost negligible in itself, and this is true in almost all the levels where the encounters between different games take place, but it would be naive and crying for generations to think that there is no cumulative effect and contribution to the character of the people who make up the population of Israel. The main reason I read and comment here is not out of a mission to save souls, but when I come across commenters who present illegitimate thinking I feel obligated to at least expose the fact that they are not willing to play fairly. If I was able to positively influence other readers, that's good.

    That. Are you different from the evolution-deluded commenters here, and if so, then in what way?
    A. In that I am discussing the subject under the rules of the game while it is obvious that they are not (especially those that deny evolution and/or the theory of common descent). I'm sure there will be a fascinating discussion if one day an evolution fool appears here who is willing to play by the rules of the game I mentioned earlier. I have yet to meet one like this. Do you know someone like that?

  238. Gali and Yuval:
    All theories about the formation of life are based on evolution.
    Although not about evolution that works through DNA like the one we observe today, but evolution nonetheless - exactly according to the same principles formulated by Darwin and which have since been applied in many fields - even outside of biology.
    There is something that can replicate itself with a probability of certain changes.
    There is competition for resources.
    Those who are more successful in utilizing resources for reproduction reproduce more.
    Although none of the "non-creationists" rules out in advance a natural mechanism different from evolution, such a mechanism has not yet been proposed by anyone.

    It is true that it is desirable to separate the evolution that led to the formation of life and that which occurred after the formation of life because we have a lot of tangible evidence for the latter. So tangible that even the church had to admit that what is written in the Torah is nonsense (and therefore the question arises what are they trying to defend when they continue to argue? About the interpretations they fabricate in order to continue believing in the Torah even though it has been refuted?).
    But this separation for the sake of argument does not mean that life itself was not created in the first place through an evolutionary process. On the contrary - as far as we understand they were indeed created in an evolutionary process.

    Examples of theories about the formation of life:

    Thanks for the update.

  239. Did you notice that I didn't see fit to get into a debate here? I knew there would be a discussion here between two uncompromising parties whose chances of changing their minds tend to zero, so why invest energy
    Continue your attempts to influence the uninfluenced. Me, I have other things to do.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  240. Thank you Gali ♥

    Although you "stole the words out of my mouth" but you saved me a lot of writing.

    I will only add that since it is still not clear at which stage of the complexity of life the process of natural selection began, it is not impossible to find it, or a primitive version of it, already at the molecular stage. For example, a certain environment allows (or forces) the creation of precisely these molecules and not others.

    It is possible, by the way, to go further back with this question and ask how it happened that the entire visible universe is populated mainly by particles of the proton type (the hydrogen nucleus) and not by particles of another type, i.e. what are the conditions in the universe that favored the proton and not, for example, the positron.
    But, as Erez said, at this stage of the knowledge base's life, the debate is mainly on a philosophical level.

    Good signature

  241. The debate about evolution evokes some ancient instinct in people to respond. It seems to me that it is some kind of mutation or some kind of genetic defect - as soon as you talk about evolution and evolution deniers, everyone immediately jumps up and reacts. 🙂
    Well then I also jump in and respond. A monkey after a human... and therefore I am also a monkey. 🙂
    The debate is not only about what happened after life was created. And today the church for example accepts that after life was created there was evolution. But it says that life was created in creation by an intelligent being and that is God.
    But the debate is about how life was created. Science says by spontaneous creation while religious people claim by creation.
    Science also talks about the creation of life. It is true that this is outside the scope of the theory of evolution. But it is not outside the scope of science. These are other theories that scientists offer as an explanation for the creation of life, chemical and biological theories, and not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution really cannot explain the creation of life itself. But there are still other theories that scientists offer as an explanation for the creation of life: mainly everything related to spontaneous creation. From the moment life was created, that's when the theory of evolution comes into play.
    The big debate is about these theories that are related to spontaneous creation. This is what mainly annoys the religious people and they will never accept such theories because they are in complete contradiction to creation.

  242. jubilee
    The issue of "who created" is a more philosophical and less scientific discussion because there is no scientific evidence for a planned creation of natural laws, or mechanisms in nature. So far I have only come across the arguments "it is impossible that there was no planning" and not positive evidence such as a workshop, plans, tools, etc. that used the same planner, I have not come across evidence of when that planning event supposedly took place, how many stages it had, identity or evidence Anything about that planner and of course who planned the planner. As soon as positive evidence for such a creation appears, I have no doubt that it will stand up to scientific discussion. Until this happens, the status of that "theory" is the same as the status of the flying spaghetti monster (from a scientific point of view, of course).

  243. Dear Camila,
    The wait is long enough for my answer, and it has already been a year.

    "You still haven't answered my question as to whether the world view of the residents of the insane asylum is also a "legitimate thought" in your eyes"
    "Following the spirit of your words, I also propose to immediately release everyone who is in an insane asylum because their opinion must also be equally legitimate"

    You opened your last response to me with a reference to the crazy, and this is the second time, until a reference to my words was missed (I dare to hope, however, that it did not disappear from your notice), apparently the subject preoccupies you and therefore let's expand the discussion on it.
    I will go ahead and say that contrary to the common ignorance, psychiatric hospitals are not used as forbidden homes for the "insane" but as hospitals that treat those whose mental suffering does not allow them to live in a normal environment. That's why no one is banned or released based on his views, no matter how different they may be.

    In order to address the fascinating issue of legitimacy that you have raised, we must first make sure that we are speaking the same language.
    Would you please agree to answer three short questions:

    1. What is legitimacy in your eyes?
    2. What is the danger in denying evolution over this site?
    3. Are you different from the evolution-deluded commenters here, and if so, then how?

  244. And another important thing!
    The Torah book is not registered as a history book! Noah's box calculation etc. is ridiculous
    But the person needs to find out why towards himself, he needs to learn the inner workings of the Torah.

  245. Larez Gertie

    Things are simpler, there is evolution, but creation is not spontaneous
    The entire process of creation, including evolution, exists from the thought of creation by a higher power = nature = God
    Except that these are not spontaneous actions, all matter and the entire universe known to us and unknown to us,
    acting from the same higher power.
    including the evolution of man from ape, etc.

  246. Regarding the experiment of the 'blood pipeline to Eilat'..
    What I don't see in this experiment:
    A. Were the students really convinced that this was a real need, or did they think that it was a hypothetical project that allows them to test their ability to solve a problem..
    B. Given that the answer is the first part of the sentence, should they suspect that someone intends to unethically use their solutions..?
    In short: to me it sounds like manipulation.. (which assumes the desired, and 'builds' the experiment so that it aims at the result..)
    By comparison: Milgram's famous experiment sounds much more serious..

  247. Yuval - sorry for the misunderstanding. Only the beginning of my words were directed at you as I responded to your words "that you usually speak to the matter, but this does not completely compensate for your other contributing qualities." The sequel is for everyone.
    Camila - everything is relative. Let's say that the very smart ones are 135, you are 145 and as you say - in your environment there are also more. And I'm not just saying this, I have something to rely on, including a point of reference.

  248. Michael,

    If so then there is an agreement between us and I still wonder if so what the argument was about 🙂

  249. R.H.:
    There was nothing else.
    I only said that mere complexity is not enough and a very special structure is needed.

  250. Michael,

    There is no debate between us about what you said here and I agree with you 100% that it is clear that not all complexity will bring awareness. On the other hand, I was under the impression that you claimed that beyond the special combination of simple elements there is also something else.

  251. withering
    It could be that 'fear' was a misplaced word... but even if you understand why he is lying and how absurd it is, in this forum you just have to explain. Otherwise it would have been possible to simply block him and 'save' all this, (undemocratic in my eyes).. In any case, an expression of anger (even justified), does not really explain why it is misleading. And it seems to me that this is the benefit of you and your likeness, that you understand the matria and can really explain and really convince..

    It can be explained why when someone raises a scientific question (even a logical one) about evolution, he really has to deal with all the studies that came before... (he can't just claim that it's a conspiracy) and this is something Shingua does by comparing homologous proteins for example to 'models of Cars' .. not something terribly difficult to deal with, given so much accumulated knowledge. correct me if I'm wrong..

  252. An anonymous user wrote: "God, in my belief, created a perfect world in which the evolution that "plays" with those DNA letters is also included and allowed man's imagination to think that he is changing or changing within a huge universe of which man is not even a point."

    Beyond the embarrassing fact that what you write contradicts the source of your knowledge about God, the lion, in the sense that in the story of creation we are talking about finished, non-evolving beings, your claim contradicts itself in a sad way.

    There is a complete contradiction between a "perfect world" and evolutionary activity. What there is is far from perfect and full of flaws like holes in the net.

    If your God both created man and "gave man's imagination" so and so there are two problems here: a. If so, God is a soulless manipulator; B. If so - how do you know that?

    The matter of education is not relevant to the discussion. Everything you need to know about God and his works is written in the scriptures. It was good back then when they didn't know much; Apparently when you know a lot it just doesn't work.

    Regarding the honorable professor: I faithfully promise you one thing: he does not apply the principles of his faith to his scientific research. Belief has an exemption, and the exemption is given according to one's personal needs.

  253. Today I heard Prof. Zak Goldberg from the Technion, a physicist who works at CERN and was a small partner in the neutrino experiment, how he talks about creation and his belief in the creation of the world, true modesty of a scientist, and if a scientist like him who deals with creation can talk like that, there is no doubt that the real deal here is with faith and not In science, with all due respect, I am sorry to be disappointed, you speak faith in the false garb of science and act as religious in your faith.

    God, in my belief, created a perfect world in which evolution is also included, which "plays" with those DNA letters and allowed man's imagination to think that he is changing or changing within a huge universe of which man is not even a point.

    The education of each of us is very limited and usually covers a very narrow field and only modesty like Prof. Goldberg's can promote and develop.

    Happy New Year and good writing and signing to everyone

  254. withering

    Here is your first comment:

    I am ashamed to admit that such discussions exhaust me even if true things are said in them. The proposal I made is indeed loaded to the point of exhaustion with problems that I have been struggling with for many years. You dismissed it because it defies logic. I tried to explain that we have to expand the logic so that it also includes the situation I'm talking about, but here I already broke down. You are simply stronger than me in arguments.

    In the meantime, following Moshe's comments, I became acquainted with the mathematician George Spencer Brown and his book Laws of Form. It turns out that he was the predecessor by about 14 years and also formulated the mathematical basis clearly using symbols that make it very easy to understand things. At the age of 88, he is still prolific, and a year ago a new edition of his book was published. recommended.

  255. Aryeh Seter,
    Thank you for the understanding you show, however, I would like to refrain from the superlative you gave me. Since I know several gifted people closely, I have a standard and believe me I am not close to the end of their abilities (each and every one in their field). Anyway, thanks for the compliment.

  256. jubilee,
    You wrote: "At the time I raised a question about the origin of matter, and in response you raised a claim that does not fall short in its stupidity from the creationist/religious claims: "matter has always been". From that moment on, you were "tagged" by me in the section "Exemplary virgin ears sub-section"."

    Can you please provide a link to my response from the same discussion that you refer to here? I remember things a little differently, and of course I did not object to your claims then because they were "boring" as you said. Boredom in itself is not a fundamental flaw in making arguments. Boring is usually synonymous with something known and accepted by everyone and your words were far from that, and in that respect they were interesting. Are you sure you didn't understand what I said there, what are the problems that exist in my opinion in your comments?

    As for my comments, this is my style, take it or live it, I'm not trying to please anyone here except my conscience. I'm sure there will be those who think that there is content in these comments that makes them worth looking at, regardless of the style. As for others, it was not just that this style was directed towards certain commenters and not towards others.

  257. Nadav:
    There is a solution but I will not post it here nor will I hint here about the solution.
    This question is often used by me to expose the lie of the creationists (in fact - the ultra-orthodox pretending to be creationists).
    I am willing to correspond with you by email and wonder a little about your jar and then, depending on what I learn, I will decide whether to give you a hint.

  258. R.H.:
    Since it is possible to understand from your words something incorrect about my words, I want to clarify my opinion here again.
    My opinion is also that consciousness consists of known elements and all I disagree with (and I explained this well during that discussion) is the claim that this is the essence of complexity (and I gave an example of extremely complex systems that lack consciousness). I claim that the (known) components are organized in a very special way that enables consciousness.

  259. xianghua,

    So decide. On the one hand, you claim that the creationist article was published in a legitimate newspaper, and on the other hand, you claim a connection of concealment and prevention of the publication of such articles. how does it work out

  260. cedar birch,

    Regarding your article in Eyal the Reader.
    I kind of agree with what you say there. Not long ago, Michael and I had a very long discussion on a close topic. I argued that consciousness is a product of the complexity of known elements. That is to say that structurally there is nothing new in it except for a great many connections between nerve cells that are similar to nerve cells in creatures without consciousness.
    So this is pretty much a continuation of your argument about life in general.

  261. Aryeh Seter
    I agree with you on almost everything.
    But why would you address your words specifically to me? Tell them straight to Camila. I'm sure she'll be happy to read.

  262. Eric,
    I believe that you are wrong when you attribute the reasons for reactions with an aggressive style (like mine sometimes) to "fear". I think the reasons are caring (toward the goals of this site and toward the commenters who deserve to meet with facts and rational thinking). As I wrote to Erez, the denunciation stems from an internal moral command, which does not depend on external texts, however "sacred" they may be, the same conscientious command that urges us (not all of us, unfortunately) to condemn the thief and the swindler, the rapist and the murderer, and to make a thousand thousand distinctions between the liar as well. It is the same principled order that raises in us the need to condemn also the one who insists on repeatedly deducing what cannot be logically deduced or who redefines accepted concepts and attributes private meanings to them while they have completely different accepted meanings and thus misleads, to the point of actually cheating, the rest the readers.
    I am especially outraged by those who spit into the well from which they drink, those who fight in the way of scientific thinking while they are surrounded and enjoy everything that that thinking actually created and creates.

  263. Yuval - talking to the point is also a contributing quality. I do not find anything wrong with Camilla's words in their content, their level, the way they are presented, etc. You will surely agree that Michael is much more blunt than Camila. No matter how much you praise the words of the aforementioned two, you cannot exaggerate. Even very smart people can be fooled by all the nonsense that is assumed to be logical, of the ignorant and senseless people who comment here. That's why we need the genius commenters to remove the mask and expose the nakedness of those ignorant and senseless people.

  264. Last!

    You don't shut up. You are just exhausting. Try, please, to speak in slightly shorter sentences; Please use Hebrew words where the context allows; Try, if possible, to use a less lethal style.

    At the time I raised a question about the origin of matter, and in response you raised a claim that does not fall short of the creationist/religious claims in its stupidity: "matter has always been". From that moment on, you are "tagged" in my section of the "Exemplary Sub-section of Exemplary Ears".
    You also have unsympathetic outputs that fall just short of Casper's.
    To your credit, you usually speak to the point, but this does not completely compensate for your other contributing qualities.

    And as for my model: it is long and complex and mostly boring. There is no point in bringing it here as a response or as a comment chain. With all my ill will, I cannot attribute this failure to your duty.

  265. white cedar,
    You still haven't answered my question whether the world view of the residents of the insane asylum is also a "legitimate thought" in your eyes, are the words of a pathological liar or a Holocaust denier a legitimate thought? Would you express yourself in the same way in the face of the speeches of Hitler, Ahmadinejad or make a thousand differences in the face of the incitement to murder of certain right-wing extremists? I am not trying to compare the reactions of some of the commenters here to the extreme cases I just referred to, cases that are only meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of giving apparent legitimacy to any opinion. As I already wrote earlier, there are commenters who serially insist on logical errors, on distortion of known facts to the point of telling gross lies, etc. I'm sorry that you display an apparently principled tolerance towards such reactions that deserve (especially in light of their repetition) active condemnation. I think it was Edmund Burke who said: "The surest way to ensure the victory of evil in the world is for enough good people to do nothing."

    The objection I express stems from this logic and from the need to represent the field that presents the most acceptances regarding the ability to say something meaningful about the world we live in, even if this field is not perfect (no one is trying to claim this and certainly not me). The reasons that Yuval excludes his views from here range from "hard Camilaite-Rothschild rant" to "it's not because of the loud voices but because of the lack of time."
    He wondered the real reason he wondered (or at least its relative weight which he wondered) all stem from Yuval himself. I can't (and I'm not even trying to) shut anyone's mouth, through censorship for example, for the simple reason that I don't have that ability. I know that other people who have such technical ability do not use it regarding commenters like Yuval, therefore the "reasons" are actually excuses. In practice, the permission to express oneself is given, as is well demonstrated by Xingua, who repeats in his responses all the basic ills that I pointed out throughout the discussion. It's weird that you try to put the responsibility on me as if I'm a control valve that determines what people can or can't post here. It bothers me that you ignore an important thing (which is very important to me) and that is the subject of the content and the relevance of the comments. I make sure to be matter-of-fact in my references to the words of others and bother to go back and point out the shortcomings time and time again to make sure that I don't jump to conclusions simply, rashly or due to a lack of understanding. I will continue to denounce commenters who present the same evils that I mentioned in detail in previous comments, and I still expect to hear from you which "gentiles" are not included in your basket, because I simply refuse to believe that there are none in your view. In my opinion, the debate between us, which deserves to be an in-depth discussion for everyone, is where the border is crossed and not whether such a border exists (or should exist) and what should be done in your opinion when there are commentators who take advantage of the stage and cross this border, sometimes with a rough foot.

  266. to Xingua
    Well? Something from your side that relates to the rational creator and the problems of reason in planning and creation and its failures in the execution of all the matters I raised?

    A little, not a lot, really a little, if only as an olive of intellectual honesty?

  267. Itzik Beloy:
    Why don't you give these ideas a real chance, there is always a chance that each of us will make a mistake..
    Why don't you join a biology class as a free student, and just get a sense of proportion, and realize that evolution is not related to a 'religious war', but simply another field of science that explains something... The fact that there are religious people who do not agree to accept evolution, does not make it "Ten" of the atheists' or something like that..

    No one needs to 'convince' you either, you choose how you want to perceive and analyze things, it's basically your business only..

  268. Ghost
    albeit late

    You sound and look either like a mad scientist or a religious fanatic, your form of defense of what appears to you to be science is insanely fanatical, luckily for you or ours you were born in a different neighborhood, if you were born in Mea Shearim or Iran you would probably burn immodest women.

    If I were the editor of the site, I would have long ago defined you as DNA waste, except that your only courage is hiding behind an unscientific name and spewing Jura.

    There are people here who sound like great geniuses and great scientists, but are not convincing, and especially when they are preoccupied with the past it is neither interesting nor influential, in my opinion the debate about who and how the world was created is really uninteresting and has a negative impact on the public who think differently.

    The article we are responding to is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's a shame that following the article, great scientists who don't understand the human soul are dealing with issues that are not related to science.
    The debates on the subject remind me of the distant days 30 years ago when the subject was none, today the subject of creation is an occupation for the bored who try to dabble in philosophy and present it as science.

  269. ^P.S
    Also related to what Xingua bothered to send first (before he retired as a secular to rest on Shabbat..)

  270. R. H.,

    Just a little clarification regarding what you wrote,

    "So why didn't the respected researcher publish the aforementioned article in a regular newspaper (the ones that appear in Pub Med)?" - This is strange because he actually did publish an article that supports intelligent planning and appears in PubMed:

    And when asked if this article supports intelligent planning, his answer was positive. For the simple reason that beta lactamase appears once in 77^10 sequences.

    Second, I don't need to tell you what happens to a scientist who tries to publish research that disproves an evolutionary claim. It is enough to watch the movie expelled, to understand what it is about.

    "And you'll be surprised, not all scientists support evolution" - so scientists who deny evolution conduct peer reviews of studies that support evolution? Yes, sure…

  271. It's not because of the loud voices but because of the lack of time. This is a complex model that requires the study of quite a few basic concepts. I tried to interest the commenting public in a certain metaphysical question and I encountered rejection and reluctance to deal with it on the part of the authority. On the part of the other commenters (with the exception of two, R.H. and Moshe), I encountered indifference. I am now working on it in an academic setting. If and when he has a public one, I assume that the echoes will probably reach here as well.

  272. The truth is that Camilla actually surprises me.. after all, she is usually eloquent enough to take advantage of the sweeping denials of evolution to explain the scientific logic, I am aware that given such a broad consensus in science for evolution, there is no need to be 'afraid' of these or other reactions. There is always a way to explain and it can even be a golden opportunity to instill scientific logic to those who are interested in hearing..
    And especially that there is so much disinformation on sites like 'Hidbrot' and similar.. it doesn't really matter. Evolution is in any case not 'intuitive' but scientific and as such requires a desire to try to understand how it manages to describe the complexity of the natural world.

  273. jubilee,

    It's a shame that loud voices stopped you from expressing yourself here, this is not the way of enlightenment in my eyes.
    The very essential question of whether every opinion of Goth is legitimate for expression, is still subject to clarification between me and Camila, and as a prelude to the discussion to come, I wonder what Camila's reaction is to the fact that you exclude your opinions from here because of the spirit of delegitimization of certain opinions she favors.

    I would love to hear more in private correspondence, and if the things are worthy of a stage and you want it, we will also find a stage that allows guests to present them in public.


  274. Birch cedar

    I skimmed through things you wrote here. I saw many familiar sights from my private world of thoughts. I will gladly talk to you.
    I once tried to tell here about the model I built to describe the world of matter, but following a severe Camillaite-Rothschild quarrel I realized that in the meantime the science readers would not be able to enjoy it.

  275. Thank you Yuval.

    That's not what I was aiming for, but I'm always happy to learn something new.
    Can you expand?

  276. Birch cedar

    Your words are beautiful. About forty years ago, I started formulating a model that presents the world of matter as the product of one elementary particle. One of the conclusions derived from it is that life preceded inanimate matter. Let us understand, life was not created from inanimate matter, but inanimate matter was created from a living being that preceded it.

  277. R. H. Thanks for the clarification, the point was still that there is a lot to be done in this field in order to describe a consistent and clear process that would even describe 'what could have been', while the evolution of the animal world is today considered a fact, although contrary to how Xingua presented it, there could have been a researcher who did not Messing with intelligent planning because it simply doesn't interest him, and still bringing up a study in the style brought by Xingua about how Darwin's theory of evolution cannot describe certain phenomena.. it doesn't happen..

  278. Eric,

    The problem with abiogenesis is not that the research is in its infancy. There will probably never be a way to know the answer to how biogenesis happened. What can be done and is really being done is to propose abiogenetic processes based on the assumed conditions that existed about 4 billion years ago. Even if such a process is found, we will not know much beyond the fact that it is possible.

    In contrast, evolution is happening around us every day. There is no laboratory that deals with molecular biology, there is no agricultural improvement, or improvement of pets and ornamentals that do not confirm evolution every day. In addition, the principles of evolution are true in a variety of systems that are not related to life, provided that there is competition for resources between proliferating and changing factors. Examples are languages ​​(which are a wonderful example of evolution), economic societies, ideas, fashions, trends of various kinds and many products.

  279. If you can intervene..
    For biogenesis, for example, there is no consensus regarding the process (because simply the research is still in its infancy). Whereas evolution has..
    And this is just a good example of how not supporting evolution does not have to come together with creationism, and for some reason (in the marginal cases of such non-support) it always appears together

  280. xianghua,

    "When examining a claim, one must refer to the data and not to the claimants. The researcher in question (Dalges X) has published many scientific articles in reputable journals, as you can see here:

    True, I agree with you 100%. So why didn't the respected researcher publish the above article in an accepted newspaper (the ones that appear in Pub Med)? This is exactly why the article cannot be taken seriously or brought as evidence. It is similar to publishing a new article with the results of your own hands on the science website. Even if the results are very beautiful, no one will take them seriously because they have not passed the accepted review by experts on the subject.
    And you will be surprised, not all scientists who support evolution are one monolithic block and the arguments between them are heated so that there is no conspiracy to hide the truth. Your "truth" simply does not meet the scientific criteria and does not hold water.

  281. R. H.,

    When examining a claim, refer to the data and not the claimants. The researcher in question (Dalges X) has published many scientific articles in reputable journals, as you can see here:

    What do you mean by "real objective Royo"? By this logic, all articles dealing with evolution are inadmissible because the review was done by scientists who support evolution.

    He said, evidence, that's the whole story.

    have a nice weekend…

  282. Michael
    It was also clear.
    His sentence is like:
    "By the way, it's not really a prediction. Evolution can get along very well with a different number of chromosomes in similar or different creatures."
    In an attempt to present Ken Miller as an idiot.. and worse: that maybe there is someone on the side who thinks there is a connection between the nonsense he wrote and the 'refutation' of what the video is actually trying to say, only emphasizes who they are dealing with..
    But it's just desperation... I have a certain amount of pity for him. Nevertheless: his only 'tool' is to repeat over and over nonsense that no scientist would accept, it's in talkbacks in 'Hidan'.. or in 'Vinet'..

  283. jubilee:

    The survey is legitimate but the belief that you will get real responses from people is naive.
    Besides, belief in eternal life is only one of the components of religion and the desire for eternal life is only one of the factors
    Belief in eternal life and there are also cases in which the will exists and the belief does not.

  284. xianghua,

    You'll have to work harder to float.

    The article you give comes from a newspaper with a creationist agenda that calls itself the neutral name "Bio complexity" and in the two years it has been in existence has published 5(!) works and all of them, by an amazing coincidence (there is no doubt that this is the result of intelligent planning) deal with attempts to disprove evolution.
    I wonder why the aforementioned paper does not appear in pub med? Do you seriously think that the articles have undergone a real objective review?
    It's like you'll learn about the Jewish-Arab conflict from Mealon Bir-Zayit.

    Regarding the gradual functional transition, we really exhausted it, my fingers are already hurting from writing about it.

    Shabbat Shalom

  285. Eric:
    Hingoe is babbling (not to mention lying) in his reference to the link you brought from my words.
    He calls a "refutation" to grandmother's stories that lie in her heart. It is clear that if this is called a "refutation" then it is easy to refute (which is no wonder - Hingoe only does easy things. Getting into the thick of it and understanding it is difficult, so he refrains from doing so).
    By the way, in my opinion, of the evidence with which I challenged Hingoe, this is precisely the most significant:

    Of course, he ignored it too, like the challenge that allowed him to show that he understood what he was saying when he used the word "probability" or its derivatives.

    Of course, he also ignored the point about the fact that Pibruk, the intelligent planner (in the name of God! Literally) does not give any answer.

    Good. At least he can draw encouragement from the white cedar desert.

  286. R. H.,

    I don't sink in anything, and if I sink I will also know how to float. The synonymy is not only in dna but also in the ha sequences themselves. Different sequences can result in similar/identical proteins. This is because there are overlaps.

    Regarding the time required to accumulate 7 mutations, see the pdf here and you won't laugh at all:

    The researchers took archaic and modern enzymes, and found out how long it would take for A to turn into B (Kbl2 to biof2). Guess what the result was:

    Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution

    How do I know there is a limit to variations? Try to go from car to plane gradually, where each step is functional in itself. it's impossible.

  287. xianghua,

    It's a shame, you're drowning in mistakes on top of mistakes.
    What you call "synonymy of the DNA" probably, if I understood your intention, refers to the third base in an amino acid codon. So if the whole genome was coding for proteins it would only be 33.33%. Since only a small part of the genome is encoded this number is much smaller. In any case, the difference between humans and apes is less than 1% and from mice 50%. If you have information on 80% please show it.

    Secondly, you must be joking about the accumulation of 7 mutations in 17^10 years. Interestingly, in my lab it took two weeks.

    Third thing, where did you get that there is a limit of variations? Analogously the airplanes and their engine also came from the same place and the same knowledge of cars. So why is this impossible in nature?

    Rafa*im, the troll is you. xianghua may be wrong but it is not a sin. It is a sin to insult, to be condescending, to curse and blaspheme. Derech Eretz preceded the Torah. You are not religious either, Yom Kippur is coming soon, do a little self-reflection and realize that many of your comments do not add up and are inappropriate and that is a shame. Take yourself seriously and you will be taken seriously.

  288. R. H.,

    A forehead bump is also a new thing. Does this prove that an incompressible system can be formed gradually?

    The entire genome (I'm a bit carried away but I heard about 80%) can change completely, and still the creature can remain the same creature. This is because of the synonymy of dna.

    You claim something new over and over again. But forgets that no one has yet answered how to move from protein A to protein B gradually. Which also brings me to Eric's claim. It is very possible to switch from a protein to a protein belonging to the same family (the truth is that this is also impossible according to a study published not long ago, in which the transition between two homologous proteins required only 7 mutations and the researchers came to the conclusion that it would take about 17^10 years). The point is that according to evolution many proteins were created with A completely different structure. For example, you can gradually switch from a car (replica) to a van, but you cannot switch gradually from a car to a plane. That is, there is a limit to the possible variations, and in the end we reach a dead end.

    As for phylogenetic trees, we exhausted a long time ago. All that remains is to climb a tree.

    to heath…

  289. Hello Camila,

    You obviously put time and thought into your last two messages to me and I wanted to give you the respect you deserve by giving an answer with the same amount of consideration. Thank you for your patience.
    You raised many points and so that they don't get lost I will try to respond to them in a quote and answer format.

    "What benefit grows from your last arrogant response in which you call some of the respondents dogs and beasts (which you are not included in of course because unlike them you are a human being). I hope you don't end your response by stumbling and dragging in the belligerent tone that characterizes certain commenters on this site."

    My words were not tongue-in-cheek and I stand by them. As a general rule, I make sure to be careful with the honor of others, especially when these are said in the plural, and if I responded as I did, then I believe that anything less than that would not do justice to the humiliations that some of the Danes here reached. Tones of violence such as those heard here have already led to one political murder in our country and no doubt to many other acts of violence, including those of which you are so proud, and rightly so, of forcing one public over another. Accompanying this humiliation is the pitiful cowardice of one who behaves like a bodied lion while no doubt cowering like a frightened mouse behind his protective screen of anonymity. In the face of abusive behavior, society can react with condemnation or ostracism. I chose this condemnation in order to make it clear that I do not give my hand in silent agreement to the scumbags that are said here by some, and thus, I ended my reference to those who do not deserve further reference, who will bark like a mad dog wherever they want.

    "The question I ask myself to examine the nature of the commenter, especially on a site like this, is: does the commenter provide content that is based on scientific facts and/or on rational thinking and sound logical arguments. I would prefer that we all be polite and nice to each other (style), but for me at least this is a secondary issue compared to the content and having a factual reference aside from the other things... a good example in my opinion of a person who has quite a bit of criticism for his style but in terms of content you will not find his equal here... for learning I prefer a person Like him in front of commenters who are ignorant (in terms of knowledge of facts) and whose thinking is full of holes and internal contradictions, even if they are supremely polite. There are enough places where you can practice polite communication where every opinion is accepted, even the most crooked"

    It is evident that in many ways we share similar values ​​and that you are my partner in the journey. We both value intelligence over ignorance, a good question over a bad answer, and human progress over degeneration and stepping in place (or backwards). Our religion is the search for truth, and we do not make concessions to ourselves in the name of convenience or the traditions of the past. Like you, I too have studied for many years, and will continue to study, most likely until the day I die, out of a desire to grow, out of wonder at what surrounds me and a desire to understand the principles underlying this beauty, as well as the benefits that can be derived from them.
    However, what is the use of all the knowledge and technology if we don't know how to be human? The axis of education and the axis of humanity are parallel lines without a binding relationship between the two. You can be advanced in one and degenerate in the other, and while progress is something we want, humanity is something we need. Broad education and extreme knowledge are no guarantee of human quality and morality, and the worst of our tormentors have already demonstrated their impressive mastery of the natural sciences and their terrible inferiority in human-to-human relations.
    In my understanding, we should not deny our humanity to any other value. Culture and the way of the land is not equivalent to the skill of "polite communication" which can be practiced as you say on another occasion, it is much more than that, it is a way of life and a second nature, which goes with those who choose it wherever they go. Humanity does not turn its way to the ideals that set up a race of human to wolf-man behavior. Be the original will as good as it may be, fundamentalism is destructive, its responsibility is one, whether it is in the name of Allah, the Lord of Hosts, the purity of the race or progress in its struggle against the absurdities of creationism.
    You don't have to be a believer in the Creator, or accept the Bible as his word, in order to understand the importance of a person's relationship with his fellow man (and now the terrible days are moving upon us, and the idea of ​​reckoning is another idea that even a secular person can adopt into his life regardless of the judge on high). Not for nothing did a religious Jew know that "the way of the earth preceded the Torah". This has nothing to do with Judaism. This is humanity, and it appears in many forms, languages, religions and in every human culture. In any culture worth living in anyway.

    I invite you and everyone who has chosen to read this far the fascinating and true story of the "blood tube from Eilat", an affair that stirred up the Technion and the entire country in the sixties, about the abyss between education and humanity:

    Due to the brevity of time and space, I will refer to the other important points you raised regarding the degree of legitimacy of opinions and the appropriate manner of dealing with them in another response later.
    Shabbat Shalom,

  290. Winning quote for the skit:
    "Regarding phylogenetic trees - I can also find the same match in designed objects like cars. After all, in the past cars were simpler than they are now."

  291. to troll a ghost
    No one defeated creation, because there was nothing to win.. It doesn't even begin..
    Just for example:
    Shingua claims that phylogenetic trees are completely arbitrary and do not predict anything because of all kinds of 'problems' as he says..
    And he compares these trees to 'planned objects'
    Today in the age of the Internet, you don't have to do much.. All you have to do is search the Internet about 'phylogenetic trees' and the intersection between them, both for fossils and try to explain it to him..
    And the same for all the other things..

    Tomorrow I will sit in the university, vote, and tell the lecturer: 'Listen my dear, you are just talking... Mr. Xingua from the internet said that these 'trees' have no predictive ability'

    It not only doesn't start.. it's not even in the area.. and you know what: not even as a joke.
    And it's like that for the entire length of the talkbacks..
    Just another example:
    The evolution of proteins is such a basic thing that all you need is to search on the internet about 'protein families' homology of proteins and find out for yourself.. We will see Mr. Shingua dare to sit in class in front of a professor and compare proteins to car models.

  292. R.H., Eric (Yuval, you too, I haven't forgotten you 🙂 )
    It's interesting to find out why you haven't defeated creation yet?
    You pamper the troll and he just repeats the same action for another treat.

    You are just as pathetic in your attempts as he is.

  293. Eric,
    Well said, I agree with you in every word.


    So now after your other arguments collapsed you found this: "a mechanism from simple to complex *gradually* no"?
    Which of the following arguments can you object to?
    1) Mutations happen
    2) As soon as more than 50% has changed (with a very, very strict assumption, since a gorilla is 99% human) of the genome sequence, are we allowed to talk about new production?
    3) Complexity is created when material arrives from another source in horizontal transfer or existing genes are duplicated (now you will claim "not new", but wait a minute) and then it is changed by mutations we have already agreed on. Wonder and wonder there is something new! Material arrived and changed to new. complexity from simplicity. Watson Elementary.

    What exactly doesn't make sense to you?

  294. Xinghua:
    It's like a criminal suspect walking into a crime scene with a forensic investigator and saying:
    'The knife I was holding in my hand, it's because I took it from the scene of the incident, what can't it be?'
    'Well.. and that I ran away from the area of ​​the event.. it's just because I felt like doing sports at that moment..'
    And the fact that I was motivated to take part in the inheritance, so what? Does that prove anything?'
    And the fact that there is a recording of a confession to the murder, so what? I lied.. It was such a joke.. What? can not be?
    And the fact that I was jailed for the fact that the murdered woman was a battered woman... well, so what? What, there can't be a mecha husband who doesn't kill his wife? What does this prove??..
    It is clear to all of us that the policeman will tell him 'see you in court..'

    About the artificial evolution from the wolf to the Chihuahua you say 'it's still dogs'
    On the fact that there are phylogenetic trees that the crossing between them gives a complete match, and matches what is expected according to the fossil history, you run away to places where there is no match (when there are also in-depth scientific explanations for this) even though you have no way to explain why there is such a match..
    Regarding the agreement that there are families of proteins that have the same function as hemoglobin, when in every biology course they explain to you the events that led to the splits, you claim that it is roughly like comparing a 2002 Toyota Corolla to a 2010 Toyota Corolla, although of course there is no place for the comparison..
    Regarding the fact that the genetic sequence of a mouse is 90% similar to our genetics (according to you) you claim 'but there is still another 10% that is not similar'
    You cite the studies of a Nobel Prize winner on ATP binding and 'prove' from the data of his research something that in your opinion the same Nobel Prize winner himself did not notice at all.. (and you admit that this is a famous abiogenesis researcher..)

    It reminds me of this event from the popular book by the neurologist Oliver Sex about one who due to a neurological event does not recognize people and objects but only as parts..
    You probably have a problem with integrative thinking.. or you deliberately prefer to ignore.

  295. You ignore again, you don't answer again.
    Beyond your fundamental ignorance of evolution, including that part of mutations, the duration of time and the transition from the simple to the complex - which really does not sit well with an intelligent creator - you refuse to address the fundamental problems in your argument.
    So what's the story?
    What do you think, that if you claim problems with the above theory - and it doesn't matter if you have a clue or not - this is what an intelligent planner, who just so happens to be blessed, will create?

  296. R. H.,

    "If we see today a complex life and in the past a simple life and we know the mechanism for moving from simple to complex," - a mechanism from simple to complex yes. A mechanism from simple to complex *gradually* no. Long live the small difference, a small difference that is all big.

    "Then it must be assumed by extrapolation that there was abiogenesis of very simple molecules that replicate" - the assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

  297. xianghua,

    Unfortunately, you just continue and show that you do not understand what evolution is and what its claims are.
    You write:
    "...evolution, which is generally a theory that tries to explain a very specific historical event - the entire natural world shares a common ancestor."

    And this is a mistake, this is not the essence of evolution. This is a consequence of the evolutionary model and it is an important difference.

    Get a quick lesson in evolution:
    What evolution claims is that if a replication process takes place there is a chance for change, and there is competition for the most suitable resources that will survive. That's it, that's the evolutionary model. It is proven and there is no doubt about it, mutagenesis and selection are facts.
    From here on these are predictions, conclusions and interpretation. If you accept that there are mutations in the world then their accumulation will eventually change production? or not? Will a bacterium with all the bases in its genome changed be the same species? of course not. And if you take a bacterium and change the sequence to that of an elephant, theoretically you have created an elephant.
    Now you will come and say, true, but there is no selection that will turn a bacterium into an elephant. It doesn't matter that the very fact that there is such a possibility + billions of years + conditions eventually resulted in a selection that turned a bacterium into an elephant. And this is probably a fact, even if xianghua's "gut feeling" opposes it.
    Another fairly well-founded conclusion from the evolutionary model is made by extrapolation. If today we see complex life and in the past simple life and we know the mechanism for the transition from simple to complex, then we must extrapolate that there was abiogenesis of very simple molecules that replicate. As mentioned, this is a conclusion and a hypothesis and not the essence of evolution as you insist on presenting. And so I realized in the last stages of the debate with you that you actually have no idea what evolution really means.
    It's like saying that everything the theory of relativity says and that's what it stands for is that there was a big bang.

  298. Xinghua
    You continue to ignore fundamental problems with intelligent design.

    Is it because you don't know, or simply because it is a terrible and terrible blasphemy, this way - talking about intelligent planning and then having to confront the factors of its irrationality and the failures of execution?

    - and this is without referring to another dozen fundamental problems in this theory.

  299. Thank you.

    I am an evolutionist in the present. So much of an evolutionist that I even tend to believe that not only biodiversity is a product of natural selection but also all the laws of nature and fundamental mathematical principles. And although we still don't know all the details of the mechanism that produced the building blocks of life, I believe that this is yet to be found.

    Belief in a planning creator is very far from me. I also do not believe that the power that created the world interferes in our lives in the way described in the scriptures of the various religions. Also, I rule out the possibility that the human spiritual functions of man continue to exist after the death of the body.

    Since we have given up on evolution and have moved to believe in planned creation, we disagree on at least one thing. Are there, in my belief, as I detailed above, other details that you are misleading?

  300. Yes.. but as explained in the video, an entire chromosome could not 'just' disappear over the generations because it is fatal.. fusion is the only explanation, and that is exactly what they were looking for.. and if they did not find it then there would be a problem explaining why man appears as a primate who lacks the chromosome this..

  301. Eric, that's just a form of toy.

    By the way, it's not really a prediction. Evolution can work out very well with different numbers of chromosomes in similar or different organisms.

  302. In addition: you have to admit that unlike Ken Miller who explains why the understanding of the chain of development gives us a predictive tool (not in retrospect but in advance, since it is bound by reality that there will be such a fusion.. and therefore they looked for it) while the Torah you present, cannot present any prediction!

  303. 'Ask nicely..'

    Cheeky.. ! Who cares anyway. Do as much as you like, no one has tried to block you here (unlike the situation on sites such as Chatbots, for example...)

  304. Eric, you should thank me that, unlike Ken Miller, I present a real explanation, and not a hindsight prediction, a prediction that has nothing in it anyway.

    Do you want to raise the retrovirus claim? Please, we'll break it down too, if you only ask nicely...

  305. Xinghua

    I asked you several questions, all of which you ignored.

    True, for a believer they are very uncomfortable, even difficult.
    Yet; After all, you're in the business of investigating after the truth, aren't you?

    Or not - and all it was was an attempt, pathetic, to try to find holes in a theory that threatens the foundations of faith?

    As you have noticed, it does not work, but as I believe it will not affect your faith.

    Because faith does not rise and fall on all of the above but on personal need.

    Only good.

  306. In addition: contrary to the usual nonsense you spew about phylogenetic trees, and speaking of your statistical calculations... when, for example, we talk about the chance of finding fusion points of retroviruses in the same place in the genome, and in similar species, while in species that are further away, it no longer exists - it's really a very slim chance .. and here we are no longer talking about irrelevant statistics, but that the only thing you can say is that this 'creator' of yours deliberately 'planted' disinformation in order to confuse us all...

  307. Moreover, the point was simply to make it clear that such a thing can indeed be predicted... This is the strength of science - and this is the strength of the theory of evolution. It could have been predicted that there would be such a fusion of chromosomes because of the common origin.. and this is just an example. While unfortunately Mr Xingua, the theory of intelligent design gives us 'air business'..

  308. Xinghua..
    It is clear that it is possible to 'refute' as it were.. all that is needed is to rely on an audience from the side who does not understand anything. But when it comes to court, it's a bit hard to win with your kind of bullshit.. and that's exactly what happened..

  309. I almost forgot about you Eric,

    In the video you linked to, Ken Miller (one of the top evolutionists in the world today) presents the claim of chromosomal fusion (chromosome #2). What he does not say, is that the chromosomal fusion occurred at all in man, who initially carried about 48 chromosomes, regardless of any ape.

    That is, according to the planning scenario - 2 creatures were created with 48 identical/similar chromosomes (the claim of common similarity, which is also refuted as evidence of common origin). Fusion occurs in humans, but not in monkeys.

    Just look at how easy it is to disprove one of the "greatest pieces of evidence for evolution", without blinking.

  310. One last round of answers, because there are only questions here anyway.

    someone. If you want to go from a protein that performs a certain activity and then go to an atp-binding activity, you'll have to believe that the same sequence is next to the atp-binding sequence. And in general, you will have to believe that next to each functional threshold there is another functional sequence in the array of sequences. And it is easy to refute this claim when you see the spatial structure of many proteins and their sequence, which are often completely different.

    R. H.,

    Do you really think I don't know what you're saying? My argument is terribly simple - selection and mutagenesis are true *regardless* of the theory of evolution, which is generally a theory that tries to explain a very specific historical event - the entire natural world shares a common ancestor. You can mutate a bacterium a billion times squared, and the bacterium will remain a bacterium. There is no selection that will turn it into an elephant, for the simple reason that there are no small *advantageous* steps from a bacterium to an elephant. So mutagenesis+selection is not a guarantee for evolution. I really exhausted R.H.


    The answer to both of your questions is negative. FYI, I am a former evolutionist. Lives in the holy city of Tel Aviv.

  311. thanks from.

    What I am now trying to examine, following on from previous attempts, is the question of whether the tendency to reject the results of scientific studies stems from mental reasons that I claim boil down to the desire to believe in the eternity of life. Right now I'm just trying to conduct a modest survey and I'm not pitting my metaphysical beliefs against Jiang-Hua's or anyone else's.

  312. xianghua
    Golden day to you too.

    Since you have exhausted the discussion, this is an opportunity to start a new discussion.
    If I understood correctly, you believe (and maybe even believe) that the origin of life on earth is by intelligent design. Although I have a firm belief in this question, this is not what I wanted to talk to you about.

    As far as I know, this approach is mainly presented by the "creationist school". Also, the impression I got from reading the newspapers is that creationism is widespread among populations known for their religious piety (such as the "Tank Belt").

    I have two questions for you and anyone who is interested:
    1) Are you a religious person?
    2) If so, does your support for creationism stem from this?

    I may have more questions later

  313. jubilee,

    There is another meaning for troll, a ghost.

    I read very carefully what you wrote and I am still amazed by your basic lack of understanding of the essence of evolution. How are you going to argue about so many issues when you don't understand the basic and primary definitions of evolution?
    After all, also in your second response you wrote "Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with the claim that the piranha fish shares a common ancestor with a banana." " Really? There is no connection? check again!
    I suggest that before you get into a debate about phylogenetic trees, biochemistry, statistics and probability, you learn what evolution actually is, what drives it, and then maybe try to disprove it.
    What you wrote and repeated and insisted on is a gross mistake that indicates a lack of understanding of the process.

  314. Xinghua
    There is no need to go into 'all the things you said' but just to clarify the point..
    You wrote
    "What kind of evolution is possible if there is no selection condition? Have you thought about it? After all, if there are only 40 Kha, there is no benefit. Natural selection will not produce such a peptide. My argument is absolutely correct. The funny thing is that this is a completely trivial thing and yet I have not yet received an agreement on this small matter (those who look at the professional literature will understand what I am talking about). And yet this discussion is still stuck at the beginning."

    "After all, if only 40 khas exist there is no use in that."
    But the study you cited did not at all claim that it is required that 'natural selection will identify such a peptide' when there are 'only 40 HA' but that there is a transition from a molecule (with a different function) to an ATP-binding molecule..
    Is it possible to understand from your words that the 'Nobel Prize winner' you quoted did not notice that 'those who look at the professional literature will understand what you are talking about'??..
    : )

  315. Is it a coincidence? Just today I received the following definition in the mail:

    Troll is the term for an offensive message that is intentionally uploaded by a surfer in a discussion group. The goal of the surfer is to enthuse, anger and incite the discussion on negative or unrelated topics. For example, if a surfer writes a comment along the lines of "There are bigger problems, like the one that cut my cables..." under an article about car accidents, it will be considered a troll. The initial explanation required is the comparison to a small and ugly monster taken from Norse mythology.
    In addition, and more importantly, the action to troll is taken from the world of fishing. This is a method where bait is slowly dragged behind a boat to catch unwary fish. Exactly the way a troll drags after him angry reactions from surfers.

  316. Hi Abby,

    I was not talking about abiogenesis but about evolution itself, which according to the scientists who support it, many proteins developed from other proteins gradually. Once upon a time, for example, there was no hemoglobin, no cytochrome, no shotton, no ttss, no glycolysis, no blood coagulation, and no, no. According to them, these developed gradually. I also do not understand your claim regarding unknown catalysts (reactions can also occur without enzymes at all, but in many cases this is impossible in a gradual way, especially in multi-step reactions). Not to mention structural proteins, which are not related to catalytic reactions at all, but to their spatial shape in general.

    It is true that a theory should present positive evidence, and I fill this positive evidence with a replicating organic clock. An organic watch, which is all planner-proof.

    On this occasion I will say goodbye to you, because it seems to me that we have exhausted the discussion. I don't think I will participate in this discussion anymore, but I will follow the continuation of the discussion.

    Have an orange day everyone...

  317. Shiguay I didn't just offer you the nickname stubborn creationist. Large chains can be formed in a supportive environment and with appropriate catalysts much more easily. And it will also take nature a trillion years to create the enzyme over, say, a square meter of oceans, there are enough millions of square meters and enough hundreds of thousands of years to create one chain that will then easily multiply from the surrounding materials, but in addition, as explained to you, the beginning was much simpler and not in such long chains. And the excuse of big numbers will not help you.
    In addition, a scientific theory should be positive and not only find flaws (which are not there) in the rival theory but offer a better explanation for natural phenomena. Creationism explains nothing.

  318. By the way, just for the record, here is a study published in 2004 that examined exactly the above issue -

    Briefly, the researcher took the enzyme without lactamase and concluded that it would appear once in 77^10 sequences. Very far from the protein tested in Shostak's experiment. The reason for this is clear - it is a larger protein, 150 ha long.

    In other words, it would take nature something like a trillion years to create the aforementioned enzyme. A bit ridiculous considering the fact that the universe is only 14.5 billion years old.

  319. "I mean by definition I did not mean that an ATP-binding protein would appear once in 45^20. I only claimed that this is the space of sequences possible in a genetic jump."

    $%^#@ mind! You presented this so-called 'sequence space'.. as if it is specifically related to the appearance of the ATP-binding protein at the same time that it is just related to your usual delusional combinatorial calculations about any protein..! You simply preferred to link it to the specific study to show that supposedly the researchers themselves 'admit' this, and this is also what you wrote:
    "A study carried out by Jack Shostak in 2001, showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required to bind ATP. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."
    And as Camila also wrote, the research claimed that the proteins are common enough to be discovered in a random process from among other proteins.

  320. Apologies for being late

    True, and I am sorry and apologize from the bottom of my heart. If I had access, I would have deleted my stupid, sick comment right after I sent it. I would be grateful to you or someone from the system if you could delete it (307155).

    But please look at R.H.'s response:
    Even I, like him, believe that it is not necessary to show the above-mentioned Saber a beautiful face.

    The response is awaiting approval.

  321. R. H.,

    Before you give me compliments, you should re-read what I wrote, this time more carefully. Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with the claim that a piranha fish shares a common ancestor with a banana.

    To someone,

    I did not understand what you want and from whom.

    you said:

    "A. 45 HA "This was a condition for minimal functionality of the protein regardless of its evolution" - what evolution is possible if there is no selection condition? Have you thought about it? After all, if there are only 40 Kha, there is no benefit. Natural selection will not produce such a peptide. My argument is absolutely correct. The funny thing is that this is a completely trivial thing and yet I have not yet received an agreement on this small matter (those who look at the professional literature will understand what I am talking about). And yet this discussion is stuck at the beginning.

    "The real stochastic-random calculation from the article was many orders of magnitude smaller, of course, and it is: as Kamila also made it clear to you: about 1 to 11^10." - if I was the one who made it clear to her. And not only did I clarify, but I even got to the root of the matter and explained that there are a billion other sequences that can lead to the same function. In other words, I did not mean that an ATP-binding protein would appear once every 45^20. I only claimed that this is the possible sequence space in a genetic jump.

    more than that. Even a chance of one in 11^10 does not fit many evolutionary models. If it is a protein that develops gradually, and a small genome consists of 9^10 bases, we will need about 20^10 mutations to create a new binding site. This is a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to the evolutionary models.

    More than that, there is no benefit in even binding atp. Because there is no benefit in just binding atp. ATP is an energy currency used in many enzymatic reactions and no biological benefit is derived from ATP binding per se.

  322. xianghua,

    the cat is out of the bag. It turns out that after all the arguments you simply have no idea what evolution is.

    You say: "Mutagenesis and selection do work, no question. What I claim is that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is, with the question of common origin."

    Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with evolution ??????

  323. 'Ghost'..
    Are you actually a creationist who 'upside down' behaves as a troll supporting evolution just to prove that there are such..? Because otherwise it is not clear what these comments of yours are meant to achieve..

  324. To all those who are offended by the facts I have presented, and to those who are offended by the truth piercing their eyes (even after I have revealed their true faces): you can jump at me. 🙂
    Oh, and it won't hurt you either to learn what discussion culture is.
    At least I find solace in the fact that there are people here like Michal Rothschild and Kamila who put things in order, and present the truth - despite the embellishment, flattery, and licks for liars that some commenters make here.


    In gematria (and you can ask any Haredi you like): Yuval Chaikin = a big defect. So here you go (imagine a tongue pointing at you plus a grating sound) 🙂

  325. Xinghua

    I know you choose to ignore, but this is important for those who haven't been following the thread:
    On September 13, 2011 at 12:55 you wrote to Kamila:

    "Regarding the "stupid" calculations as you say. I gave a nice proof why they are not stupid at all, and you didn't respond. Here again:
    "The lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I brought. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20"

    In response before:
    "Camila, the lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I brought. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20.

    And in the response before that: (the one you were referring to: you wrote:
    "It is indeed a hopeless evil. That's why evolutionary scientists are also opposed to such changes. But the studies show otherwise. For example, a study carried out by Jack Shostak in 2001 showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required to bind ATP. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."

    In practice, what turned out to be the case in the aforementioned study:
    A. 45 HA This was a condition for minimal functionality of the protein regardless of its evolution - the stochastic calculation!
    B. The stochastic - random calculation, the real one from the article was smaller by many orders of magnitude of course and it is: as Kamila also made it clear to you: about 1 to 11^10. And that the Nobel Prize winner did try to emphasize through this that it can actually appear.
    Do you agree with me that the sentence you wrote: "The study showed that a minimum of 45 KHA is required for ATP binding. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."
    Proving you're a shameless pathological liar? (Given that the 'research showed' something completely different..) As Camila also made it clear to you?

    (You can do a 'copy' to the quotes > CTRL + F > 'paste' > and get Mr. Shingua's response..)

  326. R. H.,

    I hope it is also clear to you that your claims have been refuted. And when we are both clear that everything is clear, there is nothing left but to move on to another difficulty.

    Mutagenesis and selection do work, no question. What I claim is that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is, with the question of common descent.

    On this occasion we will raise another problem, genetic isolation. How does speciation occur gradually? Is there any evidence that this is even possible? (Ring species are not a good example, as they are still capable of producing offspring, albeit rarely)

  327. jubilee,

    What do you refer to Kasper/Rafa*im? He is not worth it, except for the slime he has not contributed anything to any discussion. Besides, I think it was a bit unfair to attack Michael for the nonsense of the aforementioned troll.

  328. xianghua
    September 20, 2011 at 15:45 pm #

    It is clear to you, I hope your answers are unfounded and if you go back you will see that you have received answers to every matter and interest and you are really tired of repeating and chewing (silicone, did we say that already?). You only raised an interest in this response, only one new interest:

    "2) With the help of mutations + selections, it is possible to build new varieties - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution." - This is not at all related to the theory of evolution, but to genetics.

    What you stubbornly insist on not understanding is that there is no such thing as "it's not evolution it's genetics" or "it's not evolution it's biochemistry" everything is connected and everything relies on each other. I don't know how many genetic constructs you have built in your life, but I have built at least a few hundred and believe me that in each case I used evolutionary principles of mutagenesis + selection. So I know from experience that they work. And millions more like me.
    It's like you come and tell an engineer who forgot gravity and who collapses his bridge, it's not engineering, it's physics.

  329. cedar birch,
    In light of one of your previous comments -
    What benefit grows from your last arrogant response in which you call some of the respondents dogs and beasts (which you are not included in of course because unlike them you are a human being). I hope you don't end your comment by tripping and dragging in the rambunctious tone that characterizes certain commenters on this site. There have already been those who have used this poor excuse to justify their disfigurement after disqualifying others with the same disfigurement.

    The question I ask myself to examine the nature of the commenter, especially on a site like this, is: does the commenter provide content that is based on scientific facts and/or on rational thinking and sound logical arguments. I would prefer that we all be polite and nice to each other (style), but for me at least this is a secondary issue compared to the content and having a factual reference on the side of the other things. Commenters who use a lot of "style" but little content do not particularly impress me, whether they are polite or angry, I don't tend to pay too much attention to this because I think it is obvious which of the commenters provides content. Mr. In my opinion, he is a good example of a person who has a lot of criticism for his style, but in terms of content, you will not find his like here, and those who wish to learn both in terms of knowledge of facts and especially about rational thinking and logical arguments would do well to delve into the many contents found in his responses. For learning, I prefer a person like him over ignorant commenters (in terms of knowledge of facts) whose thinking is full of holes and internal contradictions, even if they are supremely polite. There are enough places where you can practice polite communication where every opinion is accepted, even the most crooked. In my opinion this site should not be a democracy of opinions. A plane does not take off because there were more people who thought it could take off. The earth is spherical not because the people of the flat world were in the minority. There is a framework that the discussion on such a site should be contained within as much as possible, a rational discussion on a factual basis. Although at the end of all things we rely on faith (even reading a measuring device like a clock requires a small amount of faith), a gut feeling about the existence of God is not in itself a good justification just as a gut feeling cannot alone be a good justification for the correctness of evolution.

    In these discussions, many issues are raised about which not every opinion is legitimate and reasonable. When Shingua performs, for example, a simple combinatorial calculation and very incorrectly draws far-reaching conclusions from it, he should be shown the obvious error he is making. When he continues to use the same absurd argument (which is very common among creationists) while blatantly ignoring the knowledge that exists regarding the biochemical context, it is no longer a matter of explaining where the mistake is or providing facts that are not in his possession, at this point he contaminates the purpose of this website (to make knowledge accessible to surfers and develop discussion on a factual or at least rational basis). He continues to do this even after the problem has been presented in principle (which he does not know what the probability model is relevant in this case, but it is clear that it is not a simple combinatorics of pulling balls out of a pocket) and after it has been demonstrated in a number of examples that very complex things can be created from very simple things without the need for a deliberate hand as well as illustrating the absurdity Using an incorrect probabilistic model it is easy to show that there is no chance that a solution of sodium and chlorine ions will crystallize into a neat ionic lattice of table salt. If he had at least answered all of these in a matter-of-fact way (in terms of content), let's say, it would be possible to reach some understanding of things, who knows, maybe I would even be convinced that proteins do behave like balls in a sack. The same commenter does not do this, he ignores all of the problems presented to him, discredits the other commenters (for example, who are not professionals in their field) and repeats the same errors over and over again, sometimes with the seasoning of distorting the words of commenters or studies, sometimes with evasive maneuvers in which he changes the definitions of itself (see for example the "evolution" that the clock went through) and sometimes simply by telling outright lies. This is disturbing, it interferes with the main purpose of the site and the purpose of those who want to discuss rationally on a factual basis, it is not fair to readers who are not familiar with the facts that under acquiring knowledge and skill of scientific thinking they are forced, for lack of other knowledge, to take seriously flawed thinking as if there was something in it real. If everyone could see the flaws easily, then there would be no need to respond to his kind of commenters, we would simply ignore them, but this is not the case and therefore the failures must be pointed out and then also condemned if they continue.

  330. jubilee:
    Your insinuation is sickening.
    When I have something to say I say it in my name and I don't feel any need to lick myself.

  331. Nicely said Yuval,

    It is only natural that in the discussion of evolution there will be both animals and humans.
    Let us let the dogs bark and the cattle bellow, while we humans keep talking.

  332. A person who can write letters gives "prime shit", we mean BULLSHIT, and not for nothing.
    He explains that this is his way of defending himself. Probably, through the smell.

  333. To Eric and the other victims of Casper the Unfriendly Ghost
    It prompts us to respond, and the one who benefits from this is the knowledge system. He writes under a pseudonym, and for that reason it is not impossible that he also writes here under another name. Pay attention to who he licks the most...

  334. to a ghost
    “I'm sorry you had to read this 🙂 ”
    A little discussion culture won't hurt you, and in general a little less hate in your personal life..

  335. ארי

    I'm sorry you had to read this 🙂

    I don't know about you or others, but I have always defended my righteousness.
    Every time I meet someone who tries to convince me that the reality I perceive is not correct, and that their reality is the correct one, I feel a strong need to reciprocate.

    Wouldn't it bother you if someone said that what you and every reasonable person accepts as true is actually 'wrong'?

    Have you noticed that the use of God's name, or actually the distortion that people like Itzik Beloy and his ilk do to the definition of God, is actually blasphemy?

    Doesn't it seem strange to you that these religious people blaspheme the name of God and at the same time try to convince you that there is a God and that He is so and so and think that they will not burn in boiling feces in hell?

    The content of Itzik Beloy's words are actually a distortion of the content of the rational person's words. He is also sure that what he says is 'legitimate'. That is, he is allowed to say that, he thinks he is allowed to say that 'this is what he thinks' and 'this is reality', but if you say that 'there is no God' it is not legitimate. Don't you think it's a little strange?

    Personally, the things of weirdos like him make me very angry.

  336. Itzik Beloy:
    You wanted me to point to your lies and I pointed to some of them (the sheet was too short to include them all).
    I had no intention of starting to argue with you about the matter, so my response is the last one I dedicate to arguing with you.
    You are a statement statement. When someone makes a statement - he declares it as truth.
    If this is not true - there is nothing to declare it.
    If you made a statement that you did not know to be true - you lied.
    You wrote that old Hillel knew everything written in the article even though he didn't know (and you probably don't know until this moment).
    You brought evidence that not only does not confirm the claim but is really close to refuting it.
    In short - you lied about this.

    I didn't write anything about science as fact (what is a "reverse fact" anyway? Is that the truth?).
    Although evolution is a fact, I did not write it.
    Where did you get this new false claim from?

    You are talking about old Hillel again.
    They did not know any such fact (backward or forward or right or left or up or down) and the quote you brought does not show that they knew this fact at all. I explained it in the previous link, but it was clear to me in advance that you would continue to ramble.

    You said that there is no contradiction between faith and science and now you add and tell me that although there is no contradiction - you - according to religion - think something completely different from what I think according to science (but of course there is no contradiction between a thing and its opposite).

    Ben-Gurion did give the ultra-Orthodox (in the number he limited in advance, I think to 400) the possibility to be exempt from military service and be in the status of "his teachings and his art" but his motives were not the same malicious ones attributed to him in the plot that was woven around him.
    What are you trying to do now to create a presentation as if the argument was about something else.
    This is just another example of a lie.

    Itzik Beloy - I'm sorry for the words that I am corrupting your virgin ears.

  337. First, a clarification: my previous response referred to the fruitless arguments against xianghua.

    Grace. The evolution you are talking about is not Itzik's evolution. Itzik is an intelligent guy, but, to protect his heart, he is not eloquent in a thousand words of scientific discussion. The questions he raises are beautiful and important, but his jumping to conclusions stems from a wrong approach.

    The comparison that Itzik makes between the belief in the Big Bang and the belief in God is wrong, since God is a flexible concept that was used even when people believed that the earth was flat, and since then it has been perfected with every breakthrough that science has added to our knowledge base. The "big bang" is the best explanation found so far for the phenomena of physics, and as such it is open to refutation tests. Not so God, who, because the fact of his existence is not at all subject to debate, he had to be flexible in order to survive. See, for example, the words of the last Pope, who, contrary to the opinion of his predecessors, confirms the existence of evolution according to Darwin, but still places God at the head of the process. I've already heard people express themselves something like this: "In the beginning, God created the big bang".

    God's place is good for theological or psychological discussions. In the natural sciences, as they are today, it is completely unnecessary. Itzik loves God and wants to subordinate science to him. He is not the only religious person interested in science, but he has not yet learned to make the distinction. Because of this, he receives insults and accusations.

  338. Erez
    Well, what to do, and I must have messed up. Fact, my response was not understood. Although I wrote as Hai Lishna "everything in the field of science is subject to criticism and requires skepticism" but if you didn't understand what I meant by that, I probably messed up the wording.

    Currently, the Big Bang theory is a proven theory that has a very well-established theoretical basis, observations and future observational (predictive) compliance. Does she have unresolved issues? Will something else be revealed? We'll see then. For now it works.

    I am not known to believe in the above theory. The verb faith does not stick to the above-mentioned objects for me.

    Regarding proof I understood; That is why the laws of gravity have not been proven, quantum mechanics has not, nor have the laws of thermodynamics, and so on.

    Regarding the Big Bang: there were prerequisites (background radiation, irregularity) and she met them.

    The requirement to be a refutable theory is a threshold requirement to be a scientific theory. So?
    Thanks for Popper, I met him already. long ago.

    I'm sorry, in my language "faith" does not refer to anything except mathematics - only "at different levels of stability".
    Belief refers to something that cannot be proven, but about which there is hope or a feeling that it exists; Gravity is provable in principle, it is practically proven and there is nothing to contradict it. Meanwhile.
    If it is hidden, my knowledge, in retrospect, is wrong.

  339. To R. H. Rafaim
    Phrases like "I will not pity the likes of you if you fall into my hands." They give me chills.. what's going on with you..?

  340. Itzik Beloy:
    You wrote: "In evolution to a small point or to something that cannot be explained you can call it a bang or whatever you want and I will call it God."

    For the billionth time there is no connection between evolution and the big bang.
    Anyway, the point is we didn't invent the big bang thing
    We didn't come and think, how was the world created? Explosion!!! Started from a small point, wow sounds great!
    This is from the analysis of the findings we have received so far as a result of in-depth research that has been attacked from many directions.
    And that is the only conclusion that can be drawn at the moment!
    And it is important that you understand
    If you decided to investigate how the world was created, you would make observations, put telescopes into space, measure radiation, measure the speed of objects in space and what they are made of, study in depth the atoms and the nuclear reactions between them, understand the force of gravity and electromagnetism, and many areas that I currently do not think about on them.
    You would also come to this conclusion!

    what can we do? No one brought it out of nowhere.
    And you have to understand and then accept it.
    But instead of thinking it doesn't make sense, you should think carefully assuming it is like that, let's go deeper and understand exactly how it happened. And it is clear to you that our knowledge of the Big Bang is much more detailed than it was even a few years ago.

    And it's a fact that we don't stop here.
    The fact that there was a big bang is all well and good, but we will not accept it and continue our lives as usual (some people this is their life).
    We will try to understand until all questions are resolved.

    It's science.
    If there's something that doesn't add up, any contradiction, I'm the first to jump in and try to explain it. I will not give up, I will look for an explanation that does not contradict the phenomena of nature and physics and mathematics, etc.

  341. jubilee

    What are you trying to achieve in your last comment?
    Do you think you contributed something to the discussion? Do you think you were able to refute the words of Itzik Beloy and his ilk?

    Don't you think that Camilla, who understands much more than you on the subject, has already explained and refuted the creationist's words a long time ago?

    All I learn from you (more correctly - about you) is attempts to flatter yourself and protect liars.

  342. When someone trashes their mouth during a discussion, it takes away my desire to respond. So just in short:

    When examining random processes (someone said stochastics), one should also take into account the presence of catalysts (a forgotten Hebrew word for catalysts). The presence of catalysts amplifies by many orders of magnitude the probability of the existence of reactions. And the ancient earth did not lack minerals that could be used as such.

  343. Itzik Beloy

    Your mind is worn out.

    According to your 'biography', I am not surprised that your twisted thinking is in line with the ideology of 'Naturi Karta'.

    Understand something,

    I personally have no problem with how twisted you are. I definitely think you have the right to exist in this world even though you are crooked.
    I'm sure other rational people think like me.
    But it is even more important that you understand one fundamental thing:
    Once your crooked thinking has devastating effects on the society in which I (and you too) live, then I will not pity the likes of you if you fall into my hands.
    The fact is that you and your ilk are destroying the society in which we live.
    Rational people - (mostly) build the society.
    People like you (and you are welcome to call yourself whatever name you want) - destroy the society in which they live. Destroying the society that lives next to the society you live in. And destroy any good part that could be for the future generations that need to come in order to sustain this world as a civilized human society.

    No one here is mad that you're stupid.

    Every sane person here is angry that you are 'selfish'. In other words, you are trying to convey an agenda here under the pretext of 'I'm trying to understand'.
    And to get your crooked agenda across, you have to lie.

    You have to distort reality for it to fit the movie you are living in.

    Get out of your movie, open your eyes, and only then you might be able to begin to understand the reality around you.

    I suggest you do it yesterday. Because otherwise reality will just slap you in the face when the day comes. A slap from which you will not be able to get up.

    If you knew history that is not only related to the Jewish people (I think you don't know this history that well either), you would clearly see that the world separated from religion just as the Jews separated from the ghettos.

  344. I mistakenly wrote "since it is clear that the ATP molecule was not created like this just like a collection of balls" and not 'a molecule that binds ATP..

  345. By the way
    In the midrash it is written that during the flood some people turned into monkeys, really evolution.

  346. Michael
    I am not saying these things as a lie or truth but as a thought, obviously Hillel is not talking about the concept of evolution which was not known at the time, but he claims that if a person moves, over time he will change and adapt to the environment (or vice versa).

    You once again wrote about the "science" of evolution as a backward fact, and it is not, it is a fact that the world operates according to the laws of evolution and Hillel and the sages of the Talmud did not recognize and know how to explain this, but they saw and recognized such a phenomenon without a name, how the world was created is already a belief, my belief is that the world was created as it is written And according to your belief the world has moved backwards in evolution to a small point or to something that cannot be explained that you can call it a bang or whatever you want and I will call it God, and I think it is better to agree that this debate at this stage of history is unnecessary, we will not change anyone's mind and that is not what will change The science or the future.

    Ben-Gurion gave a person the opportunity to declare that his teachings were his art and I heard first-hand from a loyal person who heard from Ben-Gurion's personal assistant that this was the reason, and when Ben-Gurion repented, if he did, it was already too late.

    my father
    If it were possible to upload photos here, I would upload a photo that was published this week in one of the ultra-Orthodox newspapers of four of the supreme court judges of the state of New York who are ultra-Orthodox. And this is the huge difference between the ultra-Orthodox in Israel and the ultra-Orthodox abroad who are finding their place, only today the State of Israel realizes the enormous damage done by blocking the cooperation of the ultra-Orthodox and possibly the Arabs as well.

    This really goes off topic, but this argument is an urban legend, a lot of history is missing here and because the writers of history came from a certain side, many do not understand the role of ultra-Orthodox Judaism and its weight vis-à-vis the governing bodies that were in Israel, my grandfather was a partner with Ben-Gurion and testified before the Peel Commission And without the agreements with the ultra-Orthodox, the State of Israel would not have been established, but in these agreements, the ultra-Orthodox never demanded exemption from the army and it came as a "gift" from Ben Gurion.

    You are still debating about faith and not about science, in the eyes of the believer there is no wrongdoing here there is a misunderstanding, even the most convincing scientist does not understand everything and the believer is allowed not to understand and I have already written about the holocaust.

    I don't think for a moment and I'm not sure that I'm right, I have no arrogance in God and I'm not trying to put someone over the fence, because in my opinion there is no fence, there is not and cannot be an argument with science that is proven because from the moment it is proven it is not science but life, and in my belief he also created them God gave the possibility to the scientist to understand them, and there is and cannot be a debate about faith, every person believes in evolution according to his position and status in the universe, my faith developed over generations and the other's faith developed at the same time.

  347. to camila
    Thank you for the clarification..
    I imagined that Mr. 'Shingua' creates deliberate obfuscation and mixes up the 'chance of the formation of a certain protein out of nowhere', which of course is not related to the discussion since it is clear that the ATP molecule was not formed like that just like a collection of balls that 'got stuck' from a basket, as you did well to explain to him.. - and the chance The real stochastic for the appearance of an ATP-binding molecule from other molecules.. which you also explained very well from the research..
    Hope I understood.
    What's more, given 'Google', this is a Nobel Prize winner who leads research in abiogenesis, and it's a bit ridiculous to 'accuse' him of disproving evolution without even him noticing..

  348. Camila, you made a mistake,

    I never claimed that the researchers claimed that the chance was impossible. On the contrary, the researcher is Jack Shostak, a world-renowned evolutionist, a Nobel Prize winner and one of the world's top abiogenesis researchers today. I'm simply arguing that the odds are inconsistent with evolutionary models. Note that this is a protein of only 45 ha. The previous research I gave showed that certain proteins require a minimum of 300 IA, so do the math yourself.

    Regarding the silicanth/zilkanth/zinikan. We are not in a linguistics class, but it is easier to call him "Latimaria".

  349. Joel,
    Given your responses to my words, it is evident that my words did not reach their destination.

    I find it fascinating that you found it interesting to address in considerable detail the subject of God that I casually mentioned in my response, as if I were waving a red handkerchief in your face. That was not the message.
    I referred to the danger of excessive faith (yes, faith) in one or another scientific theory, which not only does not constitute a scientific tendency but the opposite.
    I also pointed out that your steadfast belief in a spontaneous big bang is not fundamentally different from a person who claims a spontaneous creator (note by the way that I don't have to be a believer in God to be able to bring up the idea of ​​God in a discussion. I can also discuss a flat earth or dragons. The very idea of ​​God is not obscene. There are no obscene ideas at all, only obscene actions).

    "As science came to know and knew how to prove during the 20th century"
    The strength of a theory comes from its confirmation and non-refutation, not from its proof.
    In order not to expose such discussions to justified objections from your creationist interlocutors who may be familiar with the philosophy of science, allow me to suggest that you refrain from relying on "scientific proof". There is no proof in science, only in mathematics, and every scientific theory is at the end of the day a belief (stable and more worthy in my eyes than other beliefs, but still a belief) until better theories are discovered.
    For further reference:
    Popper's refutation principle:
    The confirmation mechanism of the waterfall:

  350. The blind confidence in the rightness of the road, the condescension in front of the babies who fell on the other side of the fence, a restrained or unrestrained anger, ignorance of the other's world, the need to prove, the need to be right.
    And what do we do with all this justice? Besides hot air and a sense of emotional satisfaction, is there any wisdom or benefit to anyone?
    Anthropologically, it is fascinating to see how bigotry is followed by bigotry, and despite their claim that there is a gulf between them, they are made of the same materials. My friendly advice: be careful not to become the object of your hatred.

    "From the place where we are right, flowers will never grow in the spring"
    - Yehuda Amichai

  351. ארי

    In the same study, the researchers dealt with the question of the frequency of appearance of functional proteins. To this end, the researchers artificially and randomly created protein sequences and looked for those that have a certain activity (in this case, the ability to bind to an organic molecule that underlies many biological processes that are important for the existence of life). The researchers estimated that the frequency of the appearance of a functional protein as mentioned above is about 1 in 11^10.

    We therefore estimate that roughly 1 in 10^11 of all random sequences
    proteins have ATP-binding activity comparable to the proteins isolated in this study.

    In addition, the researchers wrote that proteins as mentioned above are common enough in the possible sequence space and can even be discovered only in a stochastic process, as was probably the case at the time when they were first used by living organisms.

    In conclusion, we suggest that functional proteins are sufficient
    common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 1011) that they
    may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably
    operated when proteins were first used by living organisms.

    As mentioned, that commenter tried to claim that the very number reached by the researchers shows that this is not possible, which in principle is not true. In the same way, it can be argued that it is impossible to win the lottery because the chances are very low. Of course it is nonsense if at the same time there are many people trying to win the lottery (it is enough that only one of them wins) and that these attempts last for a long time. But the same commenter did another thing, he tried to present as if the researchers themselves were asserting his wrong claim, which is in complete contrast to what clearly follows from what the researchers themselves wrote in the article (see the quote above). But of course, it could be that I simply don't understand biochemistry as that commenter suggested, instead of addressing in a matter-of-fact manner the problematic nature of his words in this context and in other contexts that accumulated with the addition of responses from his side. It seems that he is so insistent on being wrong that even in a small matter like writing the name of that fish correctly, he is unable to, even though I tried to correct him several times. Well, he will always be able to say that I simply don't know anything about Latin... At least I know that there are others who are as wrong as me:

  352. How long will you regret with me?

    Who told you about a planner, who? In the Torah it is written about God who created finite beings, not someone who created recipes for something that continues to organize itself.

    So what happened to Xingua, what is written there (and only there) doesn't stand up to the entire collection of things proven in evolution, so we rape the being that creates all creatures and make her a planner of a soup of proteins and DNA that replicates itself with mutations? Darwin demoted his name blessed?

    Isn't blasphemy terrible and terrible, isn't that how Xingua is?

    And if there is an intelligent planner, then why so many mistakes, why? And where does this low level of performance come from?

    Because it was trial and error? I mean, he didn't know everything in advance? And that's what he can do, this intelligent planner?

    Simple, try to absorb it: you don't need an outsider to get started, you certainly don't need a serial programmer to arrange mutations as part of the business.

    And I am also personally offended. you never answer me

    Is it because I'm not nice, or because in the face of principled claims, not even a notebook of chromosomes works?

  353. R. H.,

    See how all your predictions match up with the planner:

    "1) The fossils are arranged according to the phylogenetic trees, from simple to complex." - Replicating cars can also be arranged from simple to complex. In addition, there are opposite cases where the species become simpler. Is such a case a refutation of evolution? (I'm guessing not)

    2″) With the help of mutations + selections, new varieties can be built in the wild - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution." - This is not at all related to the theory of evolution, but to genetics.

    "3) Take a new species, examine its morphology and fit it into a phylogenetic tree. Now check the genome and you will see that it is indeed located in the same place in the tree." - So I digressed a bit in the study I linked to earlier:

    For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Baptiste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change

    So it turns out that leading evolutionary biologists also claim that there is no tree at all. And this is not a single opinion, as you can see below.

    "4) Take species that have physically split (say by migration) to places where the selection is different and you will see that each one has changed according to the selection in which it is subjected." - changed to the exact same creature. A bird remains a bird and a dog remains a dog

    "6) Today there is no creation of species "there is a source" every creature is created from another creature". When was the last time you saw a new creature emerge from another creature?

    "Beyond your gut feeling, what makes you rationally conclude about the correctness of the theory?" - I'll try again: Is a replicating organic robot proof of a designer? Yes/No?

    "As for the fish, I feel a bit like a stuck record. It does not refer to what Dawkins said if a new paper came out in 2011 that proves that fish resemble fish." - What is interesting here is why you claim that if this is true, evolution will be disproved. Are you claiming that Prof. Dawkins deliberately brought an opinion that contradicts evolutionary prediction? What, he didn't notice that the above claim refutes evolution?

  354. The first agreement referred to 400 Yeshiva students who were in the promotion exam. Over the years, there was a spillover and the numbers increased. When the Likud came to power, the trend changed and the exemption was given in increasing amounts; Begin was a traditionalist and his relationship with the ultra-orthodox parties was more than give and take of the Ben-Gurion type. After all, he decided to ask about not flying on Shabbat.
    Ben-Gurion's regrets are not worth a penny; He preferred to base himself on the religious, who were not a threat to his political environment, than to make a coalition with a close competitor like Mapam.
    But all the anger at the ultra-Orthodox is not appropriate.
    Those who gave them are the seculars who did so for political-coalition considerations only. That is: the secular parties sold certain principles, including "sacred" ones such as service in the army, in exchange for membership in the coalition.
    This means that the claims should be addressed to the two main movements that led Israel, and both of them he sent to the Israeli "electoral" government.
    So why make allegations against the ultra-Orthodox? They didn't take anything, everything they have, they got from the seculars.

    To my father
    They don't want ultra-Orthodox to succeed in academia, because they don't want ultra-Orthodox to go to academia.

    60 years they build a wall, in this way the wall will be destroyed. Since the state has allowed them to run such an arrangement, they will continue it until it doesn't work. As much as it depends on the ultra-Orthodox leadership and secular politics and its immediate needs, it will not change.

  355. Itzik Beloy:
    And regarding the lies, I skimmed over your continued response to Kamila and came across the following sentence: "From the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the ultra-Orthodox in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result."
    What a false and stupid slander!
    Ben-Gurion forbade the ultra-Orthodox to serve?
    Ben-Gurion all in all allowed a handful of ultra-Orthodox who wanted it and were scholars to evade the service.

    He even regretted it later, as is easy to see in this letter

  356. to Xingua
    Lungfish and coelacanths are definitely close to us, simply due to the fact that we evolved from them, the concept of 'fish' is a concept we invented even before we had the classification system of cladistics.. there is no reason why creatures within a certain niche should not survive for very long ages.. and a modern fish It is a modern fish, which is far down the cladistic tree from the ancestor, it still makes sense that lungfish and modern fish would look similar because they remained living in similar niches. (What's more, lungfish are relatively rare and belong to limited niches..)
    As you were told: no one 'rapes' the method in order to get the result.. Obviously, if there were illogical discrepancies such as: a certain mammal that is closer in terms of the sorting method to a fish, then there is a problem.. but there will still always be special cases that are required To understand the processes behind them, just as in Drowin's time there was still no, and genetics was needed as a pillar for understanding evolution. Only people like you who are completely uncreative will just throw out an illogical conclusion along the lines of 'God' instead of deciphering the real explanation..

  357. Even the first sentence you wrote is a lie.
    Old Hillel knew nothing and a half about evolution.
    To this day, many of his students oppose evolution.
    The quote you gave has nothing to do with evolution at all.
    Do you see anything there about mutations?
    Do you see anything there about natural selection?
    More than that.
    The text is more suitable for creationism than evolution.
    After all, one of the claims of the rational planning quacks is based on the conformity of all things to each other in such a wonderful way (which is not true, but they claim) that it is impossible to imagine that there is no planning here.

    Hillel speaks exactly of this adaptation and does not speak of the process of its development and we know what the Bible says that Hillel did not exonerate regarding the manner in which the animals were created.
    In other words - the words of Hallel should be perceived as a song of praise to the wisdom of the Creator much more than as something else and in any case - under no circumstances as an understanding of the process of evolution.

    In short - nothing at all, but that doesn't stop you from claiming (and right after an article explaining what evolution is) that old Hillel knew all this.

    Even Rashi's interpretations of the above do not talk about evolution and at most one of his words can be interpreted as a process that goes through a single animal (again - nothing about mutations and natural selection which is the whole idea of ​​evolution).

    In the second response you write a lot of nonsense but one of them is a blatant lie.
    You write "The Torah nowhere denies evolution and the opposite is true (see Hillel the Elder)."

    So while it is clear that the Torah will not bother to deny something that its writers have never even heard of, the Torah tells a completely different story about how the different species of animals were created than the story told by the science of evolution, in other words - it denies evolution in a total and comprehensive way.

    See Itzik.
    I could go on and on.
    A lie is not saying something wrong out of a misunderstanding, but rather a deliberate saying of things that someone says he knows that he does not know.
    This is the case with many of your words.
    I will not compile an encyclopedia of all the lies here and will be satisfied with the above.

  358. xianghua,

    Evolution, unlike for example the planner theory, has many predictions that have come true and this is what has made it such a successful and accepted theory. The morphological similarity is only one of them.
    Other examples from the sleeve are:
    1) The fossils are arranged according to the phylogenetic trees, from simple to complex.
    2) With the help of mutations + selections, new varieties can be built in the wild - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution.
    3) Take a new species, examine its morphology and fit it into a phylogenetic tree. Now check the genome and you will see that it is indeed located in the same place in the tree.
    4) Take species that have physically split (say by migration) to places where the selection is different and you will see that each one has changed according to the selection in which it is placed.
    5) The immigrant effect
    6) Today there is no creation of species "there is one" every creature is created from another creature

    All of these were found and are found every day routinely. So evolution has been confirmed by millions of observations and experiments.

    I will ask again, what are the predictions for the planner theory? Is it possible for once to get an answer that is not related to evolution? As mentioned, they are not alternative theories, and the fact that you disproved evolution did not automatically prove that your theory is correct. So one last time, what makes you beyond your gut feeling to conclude rationally about the correctness of the theory?

    As for the fish, I feel a bit like a stuck record. It doesn't look like what Dawkins said if a new paper came out in 2011 proving that the fish resemble fish. So really this matter is exhausted.

  359. Michael
    It's not nice to throw mud, if you think I lied (strange to me, I ask to learn and understand, and sometimes I'm also wrong) say what, and don't throw.

    I'm an ultra-Orthodox religious, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and I'm very curious about science (especially popular). I'm sure you're not pointing your finger at me, I'm not trying to "return" anyone and I'm glad that there are balances, your thinking about the other and the different, is not good.

    You should address the main point of your arguments to Ben-Gurion (incidentally, my father's grandfather was the head of Agudath Israel several years before the establishment of the state and he wrote the rules on the common living space and Ben-Gurion agreed with him and this is the status quo), no one demanded from Ben-Gurion not to recruit Haredim for the army and he had no problem doing so, from the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the Haredim in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result.

    In my opinion, the budgets are quite balanced and the brain drain is more related to the possibility of personal development, which experts claim that a generation is stuck in universities.

  360. Michael
    It's not nice to throw mud, if you think I lied (strange to me, I ask to learn and understand, and sometimes I'm also wrong) say what, and don't throw.

    I'm an ultra-Orthodox religious, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and I'm very curious about science (especially popular). I'm sure you're not pointing your finger at me, I'm not trying to "return" anyone and I'm glad that there are balances, your thinking about the other and the different, is not good.

    You should address the main point of your arguments to Ben-Gurion (incidentally, my father's grandfather was the head of Agudath Israel several years before the establishment of the state and he wrote the rules on the common living space and Ben-Gurion agreed with him and this is the status quo), no one demanded from Ben-Gurion not to recruit Haredim for the army and he had no problem doing so, from the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the Haredim in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result.

    In my opinion, the budgets are quite balanced and the brain drain is more related to the possibility of personal development, which experts claim that a generation is stuck in universities.

  361. By the way, R.H.

    Since this discussion has probably exhausted itself, just out of curiosity, why do you think that disproving the similar morphology=similar genetics argument will disprove the theory of evolution? In addition, if this were true, how would you explain the fact that Mr. Dawkins himself, makes the claim that the Silican is closer to man than to its fish brethren. Isn't it a little strange that in a book that claims to present evidence for evolution, it presents a refutation of evolution?

  362. To Camila:
    You wrote to Xinghua: "The researcher explained himself in the article and I never claimed that the number that the same researcher presented in the context he was talking about was wrong. What you are asking me to do is to explain why you, you and not him, distorted what was written there and "drawn" a wrong conclusion "based on" what was written in that article. I can't explain it because I can't trace irrational thinking like yours"
    As a biologist: could you present to a layman like me in a more comprehensible way what is the exact context in which the researcher spoke?

  363. Erez
    Regarding security: everything in the field of science is subject to criticism and requires skepticism. The matter of God does not belong to the field of science. The matter of God is the matter of a being that we learn about from one source: its book of revelation, otherwise known as the Tanach. Therefore we are dealing with faith, not knowledge.

    Which brings us back to the issue of criticism and skepticism: activating the two, even at low intensity, simply breaks down the essence of that entity.

    The attempt to separate the biblical God from today's scientific knowledge and trying to connect God to that proven knowledge is a nice exercise, but after two rounds it doesn't hold water (they spill after the shakes).

  364. Erez
    guess, guess This idea presupposes my opinion because it is immanent to physical reality as science came to know and knew how to prove during the 20th century.

    The idea of ​​a being external to all of this is not immanent to this reality, but it is an expression of the ethnocentric perception of man that a living being is needed to start everything.
    The problem is that the existence of such a being is not supported even by a tail of proof, there are many things that contradict its existence, and above all, what we know about its activities in the field, which is not written in the first two chapters of Genesis.
    And with that, Erez, we're not going anywhere. the opposite. The array of contradictions within the stories and between them eliminates any possibility of treating this matter as a knowledge base, if only for the purpose of the discussion. Now, taking this entity, and connecting it to the big bang, is like taking the level of certainty that a baby has about falling objects and claiming that he understands quantum mechanics.
    In short: Creator God is an excellent and correct concept. For its time - and above all a derivative of human knowledge at the time when this concept was created. Today, as you know, we know more, much more.
    But not all of them, and above all: what they know, really does not help the human soul who nevertheless wants a super being in many cases. And this is something that science not only cannot provide, it even harms it.

  365. cedar,
    In the past I already wrote to you that I believe that not every opinion is legitimate (and see R.H.'s example above), in fact there are opinions that are really dangerous because those who hold them sometimes also behave in accordance with the same opinion and then it happens that a person is stabbed just because of his sexual orientation or that a person who has gone to his death is stoned On Shabbat and moved too close to the wrong neighborhood, sometimes a person's blood is allowed because of really crazy things and sometimes just because he is a gentile (which some religious believe is almost subhuman and at most a servant of the Jews). You would have to be very naive not to notice the opposite relationship between religion and science, where the meaning translates very quickly to where budgets are poured. In a country like ours, which is in the process of an alarming panic and an equally alarming brain drain of scientists and other talented people, the existence of my children and yours is already much less secure here (unless you are one of those who trust our heavenly father). If you also want a halachic state to be established here that is based on the true moral values ​​of the religion (those that are realized in practice and not those that are written in books and known to every sane person in the world) including the violence as seen in ultra-Orthodox demonstrations, on Shabbat, in the modesty vigils, in conflicts between the various currents, including the ignorance of science And in art, including the culture of arrogance, excuse the "argument", including the distortion of the law, the arbitrariness of the heart and the cynical exploitation that prevails in rabbinic courts, in the kashrut institution, in burial matters and no less in politics, if you are interested in these, you will continue to accept every opinion as legitimate, as you can see in further discussions On this site, it is doubtful whether a polite and "inclusive" discussion will bring about any positive change in those who have declared war on rational thinking and the secular way of life.

    Continuing in the spirit of your words, I also propose to immediately release everyone who is in an insane asylum because their opinion must also be equally legitimate, after all, what is the fundamental difference between a person who hears voices in his head telling him to kill gays/lesbians and a person who kills them because it is written so in some old book (in complete contradiction of course to what is written in those very scriptures) or because some rabbi said so? Do you really believe that in a halachic state ideas such as equality between people can exist regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? Is this a way of life that you are willing to allow to prevail here in the name of cultural pluralism? A way of life that completely excludes any pluralism and is mainly based on hatred of the foreigner and the different, on the preservation of ignorance, certainly in everything related to the amazing natural phenomena that exist around us, and on a compulsive occupation of arbitrary laws invented by the lawyers of the religion that not only have nothing to do with reality, they stand Many times in conflict with the simple reality as can be verified through the senses and/or rational thinking. Are you really not worried about this possibility? Don't you think that it should be opposed even by refusing to descend to its level and by exposing the mental distortion that exists at its base?

    In my opinion, when there is someone who presents opinions and a way of thinking so crooked there is a necessity to reveal his face, of course after an attempt has been made to understand his side better. Read for yourself and judge whether sincere attempts are not made here to understand the way of thinking from those commenters and to get answers from them about the contradictions that arise before expressing resentment about them (whether due to their ignoring the clarification questions regarding their beliefs and knowledge, whether due to their exhausting repetition of obvious logical failures or due to distorting their words of others to the point of telling actual lies while attempting plagiarism). It is of great importance to present the problematic in the words of such commenters, not to change that person's opinion, but to present a proper point of reference for other readers whose curiosity exists and who do not yet know all the facts and arguments, some of them are only a step before degenerating into religion and some of them are still captives Unfortunately, they never got a fair chance to be exposed to the beauty of science. I believe that in view of the problematic opinions and arguments, the repeated evasions of that commenter and others similar to him, the distortions of the words of other commenters as well as of scientific studies, it is difficult to attribute this only to a misunderstanding in good faith, there is an attempt here, as mentioned sometimes while telling lies and actual acts of fraud ( The administrators of the site will surely be able to tell you how much) to steal opinions and slander other commenters who bother to point out the problems that arise from religious thinking. I think that a natural and human response to this is anger, just as I would be angry with a thief, a cheater or any person who is a criminal, by the way, even if he hurts others and not directly me.

    Like the artistic practice, there is no problem for people to engage in religion as well, to believe in any delusional belief, to conduct as many strange pagan rituals as they can think of, under one condition, as long as they do not interfere in the lives of others in a substantial way and try to impose their way of life, either through denial or deceit And whether with actual violence.

    There is a close connection between the way of thinking of the creationists and a significant part of the problems I detailed above, I'm sorry you don't see it, I can reassure you that I don't hear voices in my head and I also don't have an ancient book that orders me to murder the religious because of his different thinking/behavior than mine. I think that being angry at opinion stealers and expressing it in the tone of the writer is still reasonable.

  366. Cedar Birch:
    Itzik Beloy lies in some of his comments.
    Does this fit your definition of politeness?
    Does the anger at these lies seem less polite to you than the lies themselves?

  367. Itzik Beloy and Yoel:

    In such discussions about the theory of evolution, the big bang theory comes up more than once. This is a little surprising since we are talking about theories that refer to completely different things, one is a biological theory mainly and the other is a cosmological theory. Apparently the common denominator is the degree of discomfort they cause the believing public (although as mentioned, not all believers, there are observant scientists who live in peace with the above two approaches).

    Although this deviates somewhat from the discussion of evolution, I will address two questions you presented here, in two links that I think may enrich the readership here as they enriched me:

    "The famous big bang, what kind of bang was it, who created that point that exploded?"
    A short and fascinating lecture by Prof. Sean Carroll at TED about a possible explanation for the origin of the Big Bang. As mentioned, this is a scientific opinion that has not yet found its way to consensus, but is certainly thought-provoking (there is a Hebrew translation if you select below):
    (There is also a longer and more comprehensive version, but not necessarily better, in two parts:

    "It will be very difficult for a scientist to explain quantum theory to an ordinary person"
    In my opinion, everything can be explained to anyone, all that is needed is good will and talent on the part of the speaker and attention on the part of the listener.
    Here is a great series of short articles by Jordan Nir-Buchbinder for the general public on quantum mechanics:

    Given the above lecture on cosmology, I wondered when you said "The Big Bang matter, which has been proven for a long time, simply does not need someone. The beginning itself. Not feeling well? It's alright":
    "His own beginning" guess your mind? A slightly disturbing idea, are you sure it makes up your mind? What is different from that which originates from itself? Or does it have no beginning at all?
    "Just don't need someone"? Do you find it simple?
    The fact that Itzik believes in false beliefs in the eyes of both of us does not necessarily mean that his questions are necessarily nonsense, he presents (and politely, unlike some of his respondents, if I may add) a number of challenges that are worth considering without automatically jumping in with an answer.
    I am a little surprised and even disturbed by the great confidence with which you say things that are actually not really known to anyone. Overconfidence is not a way of critical scientific thinking. Slow down my friend.

  368. Laitzik Beloy
    "The Big Bang" is a derisive nickname that Hoyle attached to the theory that claimed that the universe began with a singular event and with it space and time were created.
    Here is the difference: in order for the theory to be accepted it had to be theoretical about a fact; that there will be observations; And that there will be future demands to validate it - demands that were and over the years, following additional observations, have been validated.
    That's how science works.
    Faith doesn't work that way; the opposite. If there were conditions for proving God, refutable and they would not contradict another proven theory - there would be something to talk about. But anything related to God fails the most basic test of how science works. Don't like it? Not bad.

    The question of who created the point that exploded is fundamentally wrong - and not because the theory does not talk about such a point.
    You asked who created it - since you are unable to see first without a certain entity that did something.
    So that's it, Mr. Bluey: the Big Bang thing, which has long been proven, just doesn't need anyone. The beginning itself.
    Not feeling well? It's alright. Matter can start with energy.

    There is no such thing as "before" the big bang because there is no time before that point. Just as there is no temperature lower than 273.15 degrees Celsius, which is absolute zero. You can punch in a number, but that has no meaning.

    complicated? It's like there is no point north of the North Pole, although up there there is always a point that is north of another point.

  369. jubilee
    I didn't write anything different, most believers don't think, just like most scientists don't think about subjects they don't deal with, but there are believers who bother themselves about these subjects.


    1. You give up really early, I study and ask questions to explore and understand and not as annoyance, in SSA it seems to me that there are people who have chosen for themselves to explore faith and the purpose of creation and there are people who have chosen to explore creation itself and how it works, I think there must not be a contradiction between the things And one complements the other even if the parties do not always understand each other, I have read and heard many scientists who today already look at things not in contradiction and I have read and seen rabbis who know how to learn from scientists and science and know the Talmudic proverb "wisdom in the Gentiles believe" and I am again reminded of the old Hillel who understood seemingly scientific things Already 1900 years ago (he was a very important rabbi who lived at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple)

    After I received a video package explaining the theory of relativity, which I know, I thought that perhaps the solution to the virtual conflict between science and faith is the theory of relativity, depending on the observer himself and his attitude to the environment, like the well-known debate about what revolves around what Einstein solved in the second.

    2. For exactly the same reason that you think I should ask myself how this machine works or how it was built, if you delve into the question of the purpose of creation you may become more moral, more caring for what is around you, more accepting of the different and the other, more complete with yourself and your place, because "You know more, because your luck was better and you were born into a better family or environment and therefore you are more free to explore and learn compared to the poor guy who could have been just like him and he lives next door to you, so in my opinion thinking about what I am doing here is very important just as much as how I am here.

    I believe that the same God gave us the tools and possibilities to explore, learn and correct and in my eyes this is our goal in the world, we have evolved into a certain area and apparently our monkey has become a person different from the other monkeys who still continue to be monkeys, to do different things, that is, there should be some kind of goal for change and this is interesting to the believer The researcher is just as interested in the scientific researcher as how things work.

  370. The problem with your way of thinking Itzik is that it is limited,
    Why do you think I should ask myself why I'm here? What was my purpose?
    In a fixed way of thinking like this, I ruled out a lot of possibilities by defining that I had to have a reason..
    This is not a deep way of thinking, it is quite trivial, and I am not sure that it will advance me anywhere, because then came the overwhelming answer, "The ways of God are hidden" and we ended the discussion.
    How devastating this answer is..

  371. "Those scientists are exactly at the same point as the believer"

    "The believer tries all day long to understand the reason for his coming into the world, something that the scientists avoid and explain as believing in fate only, and do not try to delve into research and thinking."

    I read and re-read the same lines and I'm just horrified, I think to myself how do I even begin to respond to you.
    And you know what? If after many visits to this site on your part these are the conclusions you have reached, then there is nothing more to add..

  372. At 8:30 you wrote: "I think God created the world, I cannot and do not want to explain where that God came from, because it reminds me a bit of the philosophical and childish debate, can God create a stone that he cannot lift."
    At 9:15 a.m. you wrote: "Even religious people seek G-d forever and ever and try to understand what it is and sometimes even succeed in understanding something (see the teachings of Hasidism and Kabbalah)."
    Look how much you zigzag: in three quarters of an hour you changed your skin.

  373. Good Morning

    Those scientists are at exactly the same point as the believer, and just as they will never be able to explain the origin of that point, so the believer will never be able to explain that "point" that he calls God.

    Even people who teach seek G-d forever and ever and try to understand what it is and sometimes even succeed in understanding something (see the teachings of Hasidism and Kabbalah)

    The believer tries all day long to understand the reason for his coming into the world, something that the scientists avoid and explain as believing in fate only, and do not try to delve into research and thinking.

  374. The difference between you and physicists who believe that the universe as we know it started from a singular point ("the big bang") is that they don't say "I can't and don't want to explain where that singular point came from". on the contrary. They search for the source of Nablus and Arab, and occasionally even achieve breakthroughs.

  375. Yuval, you wrote
    "Please give us as accurate a description as possible of the intelligent planner and his method of operation. Also, if you can, please tell us how the intelligent planner was created. And if it turns out that the intelligent planner was created by a previous intelligent planner, please explain that too."
    That's why I asked you about the Big Bang

  376. Itzik, with apologies

    I re-read your response, including your appeal to Amit and Chen. I understand that you are trying to create provocations based on incorrect facts and misplaced comparisons. I'm sorry I even bothered to answer you.

  377. In my opinion, a person of faith does not have to explain anything and cannot explain everything, because of our very limited intelligence, just as it would be very difficult for a scientist to explain quantum theory to an ordinary person and like the difficulty of explaining additional dimensions that are beyond the familiar and well-known three-dimension.

    I think that God created the world, I cannot and do not want to explain where that God came from, because it reminds me a little of the philosophical and childish debate, can God create a stone that he cannot lift.
    I cannot explain and understand why the same god destroyed a million children in the holocaust just as an African from the Zulu tribe, if he enters an operating room and sees organs being cut off, will think the surgeon has lost his mind.

    And this, in my opinion, is the big mistake, the intolerable mixing of faith and science and the mistaken thinking of those who have received certification in some field from the university that they understand everything and can express their opinion in matters of faith, and woe betide those who will not listen to their learned opinion even in matters in which they are not familiar and understand

  378. Good morning Itzik

    About the big bang you can find a lot of material on the internet. Those older and wiser than me will explain it to you in great detail. I don't understand why you are turning to me

  379. jubilee
    Please explain to me for my understanding, (I'm not a scientist and I'm not trying, I want to understand).
    The famous big bang, what kind of bang was it, who created that point that exploded?

    I hope you allow me to compare the humanities residents with the yeshiva residents (I didn't mean the scientists), I don't like the condescension, a yeshiva student who studies humanities and Jewish history for decades, his Torah is not considered and his days are idle while the other studies for 4 years and has a "degree" His place in the work will be first for that yeshiva student and then come those who are condescending and complain about the non-joining of the ultra-orthodox sector in the work.

    I am a person who is very thirsty for knowledge and that is why I am here.
    This is exactly what I mean, the age of the world because it has become a religious and non-scientific function, must be taken out of the equation, it is a good matter for philosophers and not for science, what do you care what I think about the age of the world while we are investigating the transition to the speed of light, why is it so important for research and discussion The interesting of the miraculous acts of creation.

  380. To all the haters and lovers of xianghua:
    He is not wrong. He's just not accurate. He does not have a precise definition of the intelligent planner that he is so partial to, and from this point of view he presents the behavior of a foolish creationist. However, he simply lacks knowledge of the rules of scientific dialogue or fails to apply them.

    Please give us as accurate a description as possible of the intelligent planner and its way of working. Also, if you can, please tell us how the intelligent planner was created. And if it turns out that the intelligent designer was created by a previous intelligent designer, please explain that too.

    And to the commenter who doesn't always manage to hide the Tourette syndrome he enjoys (but his neighbors not so much):
    Every organism, at least from the unicellular and above, has functions that depend on time.

  381. Please people separate.
    Between logic and faith.
    I spit 3 times I see a black cat.
    Do you think I really think that if I don't spit something will happen to me? Like I couldn't think of a bigger nonsense?
    I do it because I'm human and unlike a robot, I have feelings and psychological aspects in my brain (which are probably screwed up), and fear! yes fear!
    But I know how to separate!

  382. Cedar Birch I will explain to you why I get angry
    Because before me are humans, who are supposedly known for their developed intelligence over animals.
    Intelligence that allows you to explore, learn, understand.
    But it turns out that the person I'm talking to is just as picky as the cat next to my house.
    Both are unable to understand, and both remain on their own.
    It's all due to an optical error! It looks like a person, talks like a person, seemingly seems to be able to communicate .. but no! He is no different from that cat!

  383. Birch cedar

    You are allowed to live and think as you please. But as long as it doesn't harm your environment. FYI - Hitler was also wrong.
    But his mistake had disastrous consequences. We would not like to reach the same results again.


    "A replicating organic clock"-? Where have you seen such a thing, in greenhouses next to an organic replicating eggplant?
    (I bet you've seen too many movies)

  384. Beyond the fact that I share your opinion that xianghua is wrong, I don't understand why it seems that so many people here are angry with him.. Is it no longer allowed to firmly hold a false belief? Are we free from false beliefs in which we passionately believe?

  385. xianghua

    Your reasoning is flawed. It is not only an organic watch that reproduces but that while replicating it also develops and improves.
    And I have good news for you but also bad news: there is indeed an "intelligent planner", but his intelligence is not of the type you might imagine. This "reason" consists of well-known laws of physics and statistics that have been given enough time to manifest.

  386. Xingua, what a beautiful comparison, what an amazing conclusion.
    In retrospect it's so obvious that I don't understand how I didn't see it before..
    Come on guys, throw away your books, Xingua explained everything to us.

  387. Adam, you must not have been following the discussion, my evidence is a replicating organic clock. If a replicating organic clock is not evidence of a designer, then nothing is evidence of a designer.

    On the other hand, there is the theory of evolution, which tries to explain how it is possible for a clock to replicate itself without a watchmaker. The problem is that this explanation is based on faith alone, as opposed to intelligent design based on knowledge, that replicating clocks are an exclusive product of...intelligence.

  388. To Camila: Report, the circular path

    That. And why do ultra-Orthodox Jews wear a head covering for the sake of the name, even though there is no commandment to do so, even from sages?
    A. Because it is a custom, since the days of Abraham our father - and the custom of Israel is law

    That. And where do we find that this is what our father Abraham did?
    A. This is clear, as it is said "Abraham will go"

    That. And what's the headdress thing here?
    A. And is it possible to go without a head covering?

  389. A person,
    If this was his only oversight, let's say, at least it would be possible to discuss evolution rationally even without the existence of an alternative that would be able to test its validity in terms of matching the facts on the ground, and its ability to explain the same phenomena that evolution, cosmology and, in fact, all other science is able to explain. But the hope for a rational discussion was lost quite quickly, especially in light of sentences such as: "How do I measure complexity? According to the logic that says what is safe has been planned and what is not safe."
    This reminds me of the argument of certain ultra-Orthodox people after another rabbi was caught cheating/stealing/raping/abusing/smuggling drugs/forgery, etc. when they say that that person is not religious at all (even though he grew up in a religious environment, studied in religious institutions, in some cases He was even ordained a rabbi by the religious institutions, lives in a religious environment, dresses religiously, goes to synagogue and celebrates holidays religiously). So how is it that he is not religious we ask? Because my religion would not commit these acts! Here comes the winning answer. Did you understand that bro? There are no bad religious people in this world, because by definition a real religious person is one who cannot possibly commit such acts (or at least has not yet been caught committing them...). Where do the graduates of the Shas prison fit in, you ask? Well, religious people have solutions for this too - he is entitled! He is eligible! He is eligible!

  390. I read in amazement all the comments here and marvel at the knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately my poor education does not allow me to understand some of the concepts, terminologies and theories related to biology and genetics. I feel like a complete and utter layman when it comes to the scientific side and I really hate getting into a debate with knowledge giants like you.
    Last Camilla I owe you a word or so. I've been following you here for a while now and I can only doff my virtual hat to you and take a bow. Really deep....what a pleasure to read you and your positions and opinions. You have it "big time" and there is no doubt that you are an honorary knight in the order of the Knights of Freedom from the home of the 4 secular horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dent, Harris and Hitchins. We will not take the hat off to R.H., Erez Birna, Yoel, and if I forgot anyone - a thousand apologies and apologies. Michael is self-evident by the way...
    As a layman reading from the sidelines and who also has a prior position on the subject, I must point out that despite and despite the partial understanding of the pure theoretical and scientific material, I notice that Xingua repeatedly refrains from answering and addressing and responding fully to the claims raised against him and he only answers what is convenient for him. He clings to some deficiencies and holes in science (even though Camila made it clear to him that for some of his claims it is a lack of understanding. His own) as a source of great spoils and then supposedly collapses the entire scientific base. On the other hand, he repeatedly refrains from giving his own comprehensive explanation and it seems that if he is pushed into a corner, he will pull out the Bible as an answer, and this after applying unreasonable pressure. He is aware of the ridiculousness that this will cause and therefore simply does not respond, does not relate and does not give any alternative point of view. It's amazing how similar the path of the religious and faith people is and is characterized by the same evasive attitude that brings up for discussion - manipulative - only what is convenient and plays into her hands. It is also very convenient because they are the ones who ask the questions and must answer them and explain to them. They don't explain back. Unless you treat the nonsense of faith and religion they emit as an "explanation" at all.

    A final comment to Itzik Beloy: these words of yours: "I am not a scientist, and I do not sit in tents neither in a yeshiva, nor in universities or institutes, I work for my living and I draw and accumulate my knowledge from reading and wandering in the science centers" place the yeshiva sitting parasites in the same row as scientists and academics. I don't know what your background is, but this fundamentally unfounded and even shockingly brazen comparison is made by religious and religious people. In their overlap they compare the incomparable and the incomparable and put them on the same plane. I hope that was not your intention, I'm just sensitive to the matter and your words made me jump. So I jumped…..

  391. I just wanted to point out that whenever the venerable xianghua was asked about proof of an intelligent designer, he elegantly ignored the question. He just has nothing to say about it. That is, even if there are doubts about evolution (I personally don't), it is still a supported concept. Compared to proof of an intelligent planner... nada.

  392. Camila, after answering a number of times with reasoned explanations, you ignored what we already agreed together, and you were shown that you are wrong, to call me a troll? come on. Even as a joke, it sounds like a joke. And not particularly successfully.

    And it is very important to realize that all the claims I have made here are only a small fraction of the intelligent design claims. I could easily continue another thousand comments. But it just isn't going anywhere. And nowhere is a charming island from the legends. Hail to Peter Pan.

  393. For the latest debaters and anyone who is excited by big numbers

    You forgot to take catalysts into account. These are shortcuts that reduce huge numbers to dwarfs.
    On the surface of our planet there are many materials that are successfully used as catalysts. If, for example, they redo the experiments in the primordial soup to create replicating proteins, but this time add different minerals that in the end will not be part of the components of the final product, it is guaranteed that many questions will be resolved.

  394. Friends,
    I didn't think Xingua was any different from other creationists (in fact I think it's a creationist I've already come across a few times under other names). I try to use commenters like him to shed some light on the crooked way of thinking that exists among all creationists (at least all the ones I've encountered so far) so that other readers who are curious about the subject can get a little information about the facts, the theory and the type of claims that are legitimate to use and those that are stupid to use in them. Having ignored most of the comments, especially those that show failures in his way of thinking, all that is left for him is to try to exhaust himself by repeating those failures. At this stage, it no longer serves, in my opinion, its purpose, so continuing to feed the troll will contribute nothing but continuing the harassment. There will be those who will say that even so we bothered him too much and it is possible that they were right, in any case I have already reached my border area, check with yourselves if the continuation of the discussion with that Xingua can have a contribution to someone other than him.

  395. R. H.,

    As I have already said, if they see how complex proteins are able to be formed gradually, intelligent design will be disproved.

    After all, the argument of evolution is that proteins were created gradually and therefore it divides the statistical chance into small steps. The claim of intelligent planning is exactly the opposite - there are no small steps in the formation of protein and hence the protein is formed in one fell swoop with zero chance without a planner. That is, the contradiction of one of the claims will be the confirmation of the other and vice versa.

    Regarding biochemistry/biology, this was a comment to Camilla's sting. And, not every biologist understands the above claims in depth. It has more to do with biochemistry and bioinformatics.

  396. xianghua,

    Is biology not biochemistry? Do you think you can study biology without knowing biochemistry? Are you sure you learned?

    In front of you is a tornado advancing in an unexpected way and surrounded by a calm and beautiful air, could it have been created without a planner? Before you is a tree in a forest of a million trees. The tree was burned by a lightning strike, why exactly? Could it be that there was no planner here? What is the chance that he will be harmed (well, it's easy, one in a million). In front of you is a spiral galaxy, what are the chances that a billion stars will line up in a spiral shape? Could it be that a planner did not arrange them? In front of you is a cloud in the shape of a dog... Well you know what's next.

    So what is your rebuttal to the intelligent designer theory? The people are waiting anxiously.

  397. to Xingua
    Your claim about the watchmaker, etc. is principled. Your way is a (failed) penance that looks for one thing in the array of arguments so that it somehow relates to your principle claim. And connection, what to do, there is none.

    Your fundamental argument - I say again: yours - about the clock, etc. is fundamentally wr