Nature leaves no doubt as to the real mechanism that created it. According to Dr. Hanoch Ben-Yimi from Tel Aviv University, the evidence for evolution is conclusive
Dr. Hanoch Ben-Yimi
An earlier version of this article appeared in issue number 2 of Epicurus, Winter 98-99
1. Our world is full of living creatures, which appear to be the result of design: each organism seems as if its organs were created to serve different purposes. The eyes see, the ears hear, the feet walk, and so on. The complexity, the precision, the sophistication: all these are more impressive as our knowledge of nature develops.
Since philosophy, and perhaps even before, this apparent design has served as the basis of an argument designed to prove the existence of someone who created all these organisms, God. The earliest place that I know of where this argument appears, called the argument from design, is in the Memoirs of Cassinophon (translated by A. Simon and published by Magnes, Jerusalem 469). Cassinophon was a Greek historian and philosopher who was one of the companions of Socrates (399-XNUMX BCE), and his book is dedicated to Socrates' conversations, opinions, and description of his lifestyle. In the passage before us (from Book I, Chapter XNUMX), Socrates proves to one Aristodemus that wise gods created man: Socrates: And you do not think, therefore, that the One who created man from the beginning intended for his benefit, when he planted in him the various instruments of feeling - the eyes to see in them what is possible to see, and the ears to hear in them what can be heard? And how would we enjoy the smells, if we were not given noses? And how would we feel the sweet and spicy things, and all the things that are pleasant to your life, if the tongue that distinguishes between all these had not been created in the mouth? And in addition to all of the above, don't you think that there is some intentionality in this, that the eyelids serve as a kind of door for the weak eyeballs, which opens when it is necessary to use them, and closes during sleep? And that the eyelashes add a kind of protection to the eyelids, so that even the winds do not harm the eyes? And above the eyes the eyebrows protrude like a cornice, that the sweat from the head will not cause them harm? And that the ears take in all the sounds, but are never filled? ... All these arrangements, created with so much calculation, can you doubt whether they were created by accident or on purpose?
Aristodemus: Of course not! When you see the thing in this specular, surely there is some kind of handiwork here by a clever craftsman who loves humanity. In the twenty-four hundred years that have passed since Socrates, nothing significant has been added to the argument from design. I will only point out that Socrates gives examples from humans only, but it is clearly possible to bring plenty of them from other animals, plants, fungi, and even simple single cells.
In modern times, the idea in the argument was beautifully formulated by the English theologian William Paley (1743-1805): if while walking in the field we find a clock, we will know, because of the purposefulness of its structure, that there was someone who made this clock. And here, we find in the field, and in the world, things even more purposeful than the clock: the organisms. After all, we are bound to conclude that someone created these organisms!
The argument has a lot of persuasive power. Indeed, throughout history it has been the most effective philosophical argument in convincing people of the existence of God. Not only Aristodemus but also many others were convinced by the argument from planning and based on it their belief in an almighty God who created man and who shows interest in man's destiny. And to this day we come across the argument again and again in the sermons of preachers of various religions.
But the argument from planning, despite its great persuasiveness, is ultimately unsuccessful. As we will now see, it is also possible to find internal flaws in it and to offer a much more successful explanation for the phenomena under discussion - the theory of evolution through natural selection.
2. Before we move on to the discussion of the fundamental weaknesses of the argument and the advantages of the evolutionary explanation, it is worth noting which conclusions do not derive from the argument at all, even though they are often presented as its conclusions. Criticisms such as the ones I will present now, as well as other excellent criticisms, can be found in the classic book of the philosopher David Yom (1711-76), Dialogues on Natural Religion (1779, translated by M. Sternberg and published by Magnes, Jerusalem XNUMX).
First, the argument does not at all prove the correctness, or even the faint plausibility, of any one of the great historical religions. It is absolutely impossible to jump from it to the conclusion that Moses, Jesus or Muhammad had some special relationship with the one who created the animals, etc. The support Judaism, for example, receives from the argument is negligible: even if the argument were valid, we should not have stopped eating oysters and shrimps, or cut a helpless baby's foreskin. There is no consolation in the argument for the historical religions. Second, the argument does not prove the existence of one creator. Maybe there were several, one created the predators and the other the prey? (Because it is strange that the same one would create creatures whose purpose would be to destroy other creatures he created.)
Third, the argument does not prove that the creator in question created something in addition to organisms—the world, for example. Also, he does not prove at all that he created them out of nothing and did not assemble them from materials that already existed (this was already claimed by Immanuel Kant in his book Critique of Pure Reason). That is to say, the argument does not prove the existence of a creator, neither of the world nor of any part of it.
Finally, the argument does not at all prove that the same creator is all-powerful or perfectly wise: it is possible that things that appear to be flaws in the perfection of creatures actually indicate limitations in the creator's ability or intelligence.
Not at all, since the argument does not prove that the creator is reasonably good: the great suffering that humans and other creatures suffer almost without exception during their lives indicates a creator who is either morally flawed or disinterested in morality. And also, the argument does not prove that the creator has a special interest in the person and his behavior; If anything, since the group of animals with the largest number of species on earth are the beetles, the author has a special interest in beetles. In short, most of the attributes attributed in the theological and philosophical tradition to God do not find support in the design argument.
3. Go now to the discussion of more fundamental flaws in the argument. First, the argument merely moves the problem elsewhere instead of solving it: the putative creator must be at least as complex as the organisms it created; So if their existence requires an explanation, so does its existence. Then, either we need to assume the existence of the creator of the creator, the God of God, and so on ad infinitum; Or suppose that at some point the creator is without a creator - but then it could be assumed from the beginning, that is, it could be assumed that the organisms themselves do not have a creator. Denis Diderot (1713-84), in his book A Letter on the Blind (1749, translated by A. Franco and published by University Enterprises for publishing, 1986), criticizes the argument in this way (p. 53): If nature presents us with a connection, that it is difficult Let us untie it, let us leave it as it is, and let us not cut it by the hand of a being, which then turns into a new bond, which is even more difficult to untie. Ask the Indian, why the world remains suspended in space, and he will answer you, because an elephant carries it on his back; And the elephant, what is it leaning on? on a turtle; And the turtle, who supports him? ...This Indian arouses compassion in you, and you can say to you as they say to him: My friend, please admit your ignorance from the start, and spare me the elephant and the tortoise.
Second, it is not at all clear how a creation like the one attributed to the creator of organisms is possible. Did the creator collect the material in his big hands and create different shapes from it? Or did he act in a different, much more sophisticated way? It is not possible to see how such a creation is possible, and therefore an assumption (and not only an assumption of a creator) creates a mystery no smaller than the one it comes to solve.
4. We will now move on to presenting the alternative explanation for the existence of organisms, the creatures that seem to have been designed, the explanation through evolution and natural selection. We will not delve here, of course, into the theory of evolution. We will only be interested in the question of what the principles of the evolutionary process are and how it provides a better explanation for the existence of the apparent design in nature.
A distinction must be made between the claim that life developed through an evolutionary process and the claim that evolution was through natural selection. Darwin (Charles Darwin, 1809-1882) himself made these two claims, but
While the first one was accepted by the vast majority of biologists during his lifetime, the process of accepting the second claim lasted roughly until the thirties of our century.
The theory of evolution is that all existing species of organisms developed from species of organisms that preceded them, and these from species of organisms that also preceded them, and so on, until we reach the first details, some living and some inanimate, that were created randomly in various chemical reactions. Claims that life developed through an evolutionary process first appeared in the eighteenth century, about a century before Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species (1859, translated by Shaul Adler and published by Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem, 1960), although they differed in significant respects from Darwin's claim. It is important to note that the claim that life developed through an evolutionary process still says nothing about the mechanism by which a new species is created from a previous species; It does not try to answer the question, how is it that members of one species bring into the world creatures that are different from them, so that after a sufficient number of stages, creatures of another species are obtained? There were biologists, such as Lamarck, who thought that life develops in an evolutionary process, but did not think of natural selection as the mechanism of development.
The idea of natural selection was actually Darwin's innovation, and is one of the most important conceptual breakthroughs in the history of science. Evolution through natural selection of a population occurs when the following four conditions are met: First, there is variation in different traits in the population: not all individuals of a certain animal species have the same size, for example, or the color of the petals varies from flower to flower in a given flower species. Second, heredity: the traits are passed on to offspring, at least with a certain degree of probability. For example, larger individuals of a certain species generally give birth to larger offspring. third,
The different traits contribute differently to the expected number of offspring for an item. Larger individuals in a certain population have a chance to survive and produce fertile offspring that exceeds, let's say, the chance of small individuals to do so. Fourth, the maximum number of individuals that can exist is limited, so not all offspring can survive and reproduce. In nature, for example, there is room for a smaller number of rabbits than the natural reproduction rate of rabbits allows.
Let us now describe a population of animals, let's say doe, that differ from each other in their maximum running speed - this is the first condition, the condition of variation. We will also assume that the maximum running speed is determined, at least partially, genetically, so that a doe that runs faster than average will generally have an offspring that will run faster than average - this is the second condition, the condition of heredity. Let's also assume that different predators try to prey on these does, and that the faster a doe ran, her chances of being preyed on before she produced offspring decrease - this is the third condition, the variable contribution of the trait to the number of fertile offspring.
Finally, suppose that due to the nature of the environment in which the doe live (for example, the amount of food available) the number of doe that can exist in any period of time is limited, so that it is impossible for all the doe to produce offspring - this is the fourth condition, the number of individuals is limited. Given these four conditions, the doe population will undergo a process of natural selection, where as the generations pass, their average running speed will increase. When the four mentioned conditions are met, the process of evolution through natural selection necessarily takes place. As mentioned, Darwin claimed that life developed through an evolutionary process, with the main mechanism of evolution being natural selection. Evolution is not in doubt today. The fossils found around the world without exception fit the argument of evolution: we see the gradual development, how each species is preceded by another species that differs from it in certain respects and is probably from its ancestors. This match strongly supports the claim of evolution. (Some of the other facts supporting the evolution claim will be mentioned later.)
The process of natural selection is also not in doubt today. As mentioned, when the four conditions mentioned above are met, the process of natural selection necessarily takes place. And today we know that these conditions exist in all populations of organisms, and this is not only based on observations, but also based on our familiarity with the genetic inheritance mechanism of organisms. Therefore we know that there must have been evolution through natural selection.
The only question that is still open is, were there mechanisms of evolution other than natural selection? There is currently no solid evidence that any adaptive feature of a group of organisms evolved differently, although how certain features of the organisms evolved is still controversial.
5. We will now move on to the discussion of the advantages of the theory of evolution through natural selection over the theory of planning or creation as an explanation for the existence of apparently planned creatures. One significant advantage of the theory of evolution through natural selection is that it does not assume the existence of anything additional to the natural world, nor does it assume any mechanism or force that physics does not assume anyway. The creation theory, on the other hand, postulates both another creature, God, and another power, the power by which God created the creatures. As we mentioned earlier, both the nature of God and the nature of his creative power remain unexplained in the creation theory, and therefore it is a theory that creates no less problems than those it claims to solve.
Another advantage of the theory of evolution is that it explains the fossil record. The assumption of the designer and the creator cannot explain why there are fossils of creatures different from those that exist today, not least the compatibility of the fossil inventory in all its details with the evolutionary theory.
The theory of evolution also explains the distribution of organisms on Earth. Why, for example, are there no elephants in America, but there are in Africa and Asia? What is the reason why there are no penguins at the North Pole? Why are there no frogs on the ocean islands? These and other animals could also live in places where they were not found naturally, as evidenced by their absorption in places where they were brought artificially by man. If organisms were created by someone who designed them, he seems to have been completely capricious in their distribution on Earth. On the other hand, if the organisms developed in an evolutionary process, then creatures that developed in one place, even if they adapted to another place, had to reach it somehow. The penguins, for example, which evolved in the southern part of the globe, needed a way that would allow them to reach the North Pole. But oceans, hot climates and predators prevented them from doing so. The distribution of organisms, in the present and in the past, constitutes an important support, on which Darwin already stood, for the theory of evolution.
6. Another great advantage of the evolutionary explanation is that evolution, according to it, is not omnipotent. Not everything can develop through an evolutionary process, and not everything that develops will be the best imaginable. While a design and creation theory would struggle to explain why organisms are far from perfect in various ways, this fact is required if we claim that creatures were created through an evolutionary process by natural selection. We will now detail various aspects of this imperfection.
One such aspect is continuity. Evolution is a gradual process: a complex organ is not formed all at once, but as an accumulation of simple changes in existing organs. In order for a complex change to survive, every single simple change along the way must confer an advantage on the creature carrying it. If the path to a more successful organ passes through less successful organs than an existing organ, the more successful organ will not develop.
One can, for example, ask, why don't birds, in addition to legs and wings, have a pair of hands? Such a bird, which could pick fruits and peel them, was much more successful than a similar bird without hands. But, such a bird could only develop through intermediate birds that were less successful than the "normal" birds: all birds have four limbs. Since another pair of functional limbs cannot be formed at once, what had to be formed first on the way to it were limbs that make the bird difficult. Therefore such a bird will not develop through natural selection.
The creation theory, on the other hand, will not be able to provide an explanation for this absence. On the contrary: we find in the various myths stories about "birds" with hands: the angels. The creation theory cannot explain why there are precisely the creatures that actually exist, and not other successful creatures that can be imagined.
Another aspect of imperfection in evolution is the abandonment in an animal species of traits that were useful to one of the species from which it evolved, even though they are of no use to it. Since a feature that was useful to one species can neither be useful nor harmful to another species, which evolved from it, it is possible that it will not disappear, if it will also degenerate to some extent.
An example of such a feature in humans is the ability of some of us to move their ears and even the skin that covers the top of the skull, the scalp. To the best of our knowledge, there is no benefit to man. How, then, will the creation theory explain this feature? Maybe God is not only wise and omnipotent, but also has a sense of humor? The explanation of the theory of evolution, on the other hand, is that this feature is a remnant of the ability of furry creatures to move their skin in order to get rid of insects - you can see how dogs and cats do this as a response to a light touch of their fur. It is not for nothing that this ability to move skin remains in those who have it precisely in the scalp, the last quasi-furry part in humans. The trait, by the way, is also inherited in humans, as could be expected according to the theory of evolution. Already Darwin, in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, dwelled on this feature as evidence of man's descent from an earlier species.
The last aspect I will mention of imperfection in evolution can be called improvisation. In the process of natural selection, the new was created as a variation on the old. In natural selection, you don't delete everything and start from the beginning, but add a little, stretch a little, shrink a little and so on. Therefore, many organs of organisms that are used for a certain purpose are actually a modification of an old organ or an old structure for a new purpose, and this is not always in a particularly successful way. This fact explains the non-functional similarity between organisms. All mammals, for example, evolved from a common ancestor, through limited variation on its traits. It is therefore expected that there will be points of similarity in mammalian structure even if this structural similarity is not functional. An example of such similarity is the similarity between the human hand, the bat's wing and the whale's fin. All three have the same basic design, as what changes is mainly the relative and absolute dimensions of the various bones. This identical basic design has no engineering justification, but is understandable if we see the three creatures as the product of evolution from a common ancestor.
A very beautiful example of imperfection in evolution resulting from a mutation on an existing structure is the panda's toe. I will not describe it here because you can read about it in Stephen J. Gould's classic article in his book Bohn the Panda, which also contains thousands of other instructive articles on evolution (translated by Amos Carmel and published by Dvir, 1990). I will give an example here that is not mentioned in his article: the birth process in humans, or the real reason for "sadly giving birth to sons". During the evolution of man from the ape there was an advantage to intelligent individuals. Intelligence depends on the size of the brain, so individuals with large heads had an advantage. But, giving birth to a baby with a big head is difficult and dangerous, for mother and baby. Therefore, there was an advantage for women who gave birth at a relatively early stage of fetal development, because that way their chances and the chances of their children dying in childbirth decreased. That is why the human baby, on the day of Waldo, is helpless compared to the babies of other apes: he was born, relatively, younger. But still, it was not possible to give birth to the baby at an early enough stage of his development so that the passage of his head through the mother's vagina would not be problematic.
Therefore, the passage of the baby's large head in the mother's vagina is very traumatic and dangerous, for the mother and the child. The percentage of deaths in childbirth for the baby and the mother in humans was, until the present century, one of the highest in monkeys and apes. Only in modern times and in modern society has death in childbirth ceased to be a significant risk. Childbirth in humans is actually a very unsuccessful process, both in terms of the baby's helplessness and in terms of the danger to the mother and harm to her; But it can be explained if we see man as a variation on monkeys, who throughout history gave birth to women with small heads and had an appropriate structure, and suddenly had to give birth to women with large heads. The aspects we discussed in the last sections show how theoretical
Evolution is an infinitely successful answer from a healthy theory to the question of how organisms came to be.
7. A final question I would like to ask in this article is, why was religion unable to accept the theory of evolution through natural selection in the same way that it eventually accepted other theories of the natural sciences? Although the religion opposed some of the scientific innovations - Galileo's case is the best known - it finally acquiesced to them. And even if the historical religions had a hard time accepting some of the scientific theories, many people accepted them as they fashioned a sort of natural religion for themselves. But this was not the case with the theory of evolution through natural selection. Religious opposition to the theory has not subsided over the years, but the lighting continues to be controlled by religious people, often through arguments that have long been disproved or by the distortion of the lighting. Furthermore, the struggle is not reduced to the theoretical level, but invades the field of action, with attempts (sometimes successful) to prevent the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools or to teach alongside it, as if it were equal to it, the act of creation. Why this persistence and zeal?
The explanation lies, in my opinion, in man's place in the world according to the theory of evolution through natural selection. Other scientific theories allow, even if narrowly, to see man as having a special place in the universe. Man is the most intelligent creature known to us, and this allows us to think that God's relationship with the man he created is unique. But, according to the theory of evolution through natural selection, the fact that man exists in the world is accidental. If we were to turn the wheel of history back a few million years and run it forward again, it is likely that a person like us would not have evolved again.
Not at all, since if we were to turn the wheel of history back a few hundreds of millions of years and run it again to the present: it is likely that we would not even end up in a situation where mammals are the dominant large animals on earth. So much in the process of evolution is accidental. Catastrophic and unnecessary changes, such as the movement of continents and their joining to one continent or the impact of meteors, caused the extinction and development of species that otherwise would have been extinct or developed. And in general, the development of intelligent animals such as the developed mammals is relatively late: for more than ninety percent of the years of the earth's existence, no vertebrate creatures, not even toads or frogs, lived on land.
The coincidence of the existence of man and intelligent beings in general does not allow to attribute to the creator of the world, even supposing there was one, any special interest in man. Even if some intelligent god created the world (and we have good reasons to think that this is not the case), he has no interest in life on earth in general, and in man in particular. Reward and punishment, in this world or the next, are of course pure fantasies. It is not a god that can be prayed to, feared, hoped for. Even if there was a creator of the world, it was a kind of epicurean god, concerned with his own and indifferent to the vanities of man. Evolution through natural selection leaves no room for anything that can be identified as religion.
86 תגובות
Contrary to the popular position, evolution not only does not contradict the existence of a creator, the opposite is true, it needs him.
Charles Darwin believed during his life and also wrote in his autobiography: "Evidence for the existence of a Creator comes from the great difficulty, or even the impossibility of explaining that this vast and wonderful world, including man with his ability to see far back and far forward into the future, was created as a result of coincidences..."
And today, about 150 years after Darwin, something is known that was not known in Darwin's time:
Today it is known that proteins are produced according to information found in DNA and cannot be formed without it, and DNA cannot be formed without protein - there is a question of chicken and egg here...
So how could evolution have happened without a Creator to give it the first cell?
The development of the bird:
According to evolution, millions of years ago there should have been a 4-legged creature that slowly developed 2 of its legs into wings over the course of millions of years. Meanwhile, in all this time, he can't run and can't fly. (Is it possible to run on something that is half a leg and half a wing?) How could that animal survive among all the predators for millions of years without supervision?
No matter if it was a day or a week, but millions of years?? Without being able to run away from madmen...
So you can see that the relationship between the creator of the world and evolution is not a relationship of contradiction. Evolution needs a Creator; She needs him to bring her the first cell, she needs him to take care of the creatures that develop into birds...
Evolution does not contradict the existence of a creator, on the contrary... it needs him.
no God
that's a fact
post Scriptum. Thank you for the help with matriculation in the Bible
א
In my opinion, science does contradict religion.
Science says there is no soul and that we have evolved just like any other living creature in existence. Science says there were no Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and the Exodus are stories. Science says that there are no angels and no prophets, and that all human beings are equal. Science says that kosher food and keeping Shabbat are of no importance.
Doesn't this contradict religion?
A.
A.
The problem is that there are many contradictions between science and religion. For example, according to science: there is no creator, no soul, no angels, there were no Adam and Eve, Noah's ark is a story, the Exodus is a story.
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but is it better to hide the truth? Those who don't want to know, shouldn't read... That's what many religious people do, isn't it?
A.
Science contradicts religion. Sorry….
According to science - there is no creator, no personal supervision, no soul, no angels, there was no Adam and Eve, there was no "Noah's Ark" and there was no "Exodus".
Scientists are not idiots. They also know how to read what is written in the Torah, and what is written there does not correspond to science.
I'm really sorry if I bust someone's balloon…..
Miracles
What are you attacking the guy? In my opinion he is not even opposed to evolution. All in all he says something true. If you try to present science as contradicting religion (often by making assumptions about religion that stem from ignorance) don't be surprised if you get automatic resistance. It is really better for scientists to say "this is our theory, it is based on facts and experiments and is the only way we know to explain the findings. We don't know if this contradicts what is written in the Holy Scriptures or not, if so you will find a theological solution, but these are the facts. We only came to try to understand nature and not to interfere or force a change in your faith"
one
If you are afraid of information then what are you doing on a website called "Hidan"?
Those who present evolution as something that contradicts the belief in a higher power and in private providence, should not be surprised when he receives back strong opposition. It is better for scientists to deal with purely scientific explanations, and leave aside the spiritual and philosophical discussions.
scion:
Well done for investing in watching the movie. I closed it right at the beginning when I noticed that what you saw was probably what was going to be there for the entire two hours and twenty minutes.
I no longer have the strength for their nonsense and in a way this is proof that their method - exhaustion - works.
On the other hand - the entry of "new blood" like you into the discussion - makes this meaning insignificant.
Ugh….
I will repeat again in words of one syllable
no money. There is no prize. The government took the prize money because the offeror of the prize was convicted in a court of law as a swindler (for tax offenses) and is serving ten years in prison starting in 2007.
For this reason, not only have they not received the award for 10 years, I am willing to bet that they will not receive it in the following years either
Apart from that, evolution is not required to be proven there, but a crazy version of the definition of evolution which includes 6 sections that all have to be proven including the big bang theory, chemical theories, theories in abiogenesis, theories in cosmology and in addition theories invented for the purpose of the award that are not mentioned at all in the scientific literature. It's good that he didn't ask us to prove that there is no such thing as Bamba. It's like to test a football player we will test his ability in basketball, blind chess, trends in judging formal swimming as well as his knowledge of what I ate yesterday at night
Later …. The proof will be reviewed by an anonymous panel that does not even publish its conclusions or the reasons for the rejection.
As if all this is not enough - you must not bring fossils to prove evolution and mathematical proofs are not enough....
So what do we have in prize...
1. Proof of almost all the scientific theories and hypotheses + some of the feverish mind of the offerer of the prize in the guise of evolution.
2. An anonymous panel that does not allow an appeal and does not publish conclusions
3. Prohibition of bringing evidence
4. There is no money
5. An inventor who was convicted as a fraud
You've given quite an example here
By the way, I also saw the links on YouTube
A swindler you wouldn't buy a used car from attacks 3 pensioners (by the way, none of them are top scientists and none of them can say 3 sentences without getting stuck on aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
I don't know where he found 3 poor people to laugh at, but the arguments are shallow and lack scientific understanding, including the term evolution that he wants to promote (also there he repeats his 6 assumptions theory that includes a big bang, chemical evolution, the arrangement of the stars around the sun, etc. as evolution) for those who argue that I am not It will not be addressed because there are links on YouTube that show his confrontation with Dawkins tearing him to pieces and responses from surfers to the stupid claims that they are not and they are shown as links precisely in the link you gave (and therefore I will send you to the same link you brought)
I will only reveal a number of refutations to the science readers who will understand what kind of garbage you are dealing with and will not waste time on the link like I did....
His arguments to disprove evolution
1. There can be no evolution because we know the difference between good and bad
2. There can be no evolution because when you sow corn, corn always grows and nothing else
3. There can be no evolution because dogs always give birth to dogs and not ducks for example
Need to continue?
Someone, what they discovered 60 years later (inaccurate, less than 30) is not the very existence of the genes but how the DNA looks spatially, and therefore how the genes are arranged.
someone:
Try to relate to the points raised before you.
He who repeats his words like a mantra is not my father. We have given you very detailed answers here, what is your response to these points
someone:
Maybe you will decide? If this is a tautology then it is not only true but it is true in all possible worlds!
But this is not a tautology.
I've delivered the goods in dozens of ways but I've warned you in advance that you need to equip yourself with a brain before reading.
Don't come at me with claims that you didn't do it.
I explained to you... well - I won't repeat the things because your ears are virgins.
For my part - continue to think that all scientists are idiots and I will hold my opinion about you.
Avi Blizovsky
Hello! Hello! The controversy in question did not rely on knowledge created 60 years later.
but on speculation. But with you it's probably the same thing, actually everything is the same.
Evolution is a mantra of your religion.
If the theory of heredity cannot be proven, then the equation 1 plus 1 equals 2 cannot be proven either. hello What about the DNA?
It is possible to argue on the basis of facts, not on the basis of omitting 99% of the facts known to mankind
You are talking about a dispute more than a century ago between two opinions that are both equally speculative. Because both stem from a lack of knowledge and the impossibility of conducting any scientific experiment based on the weak knowledge that was not based on empirical laboratory science that existed at that time.
You might as well bring up a dispute between two religious priests arguing about a theological problem.
When quantum theory developed, each refuting or confirming approach came with experiments and empirical proofs.
An excellent example of such a path - when Mendel's theory of genetics was rediscovered, this was considered a negative of the theory of evolution, since Darwin also proposed some kind of vague theory of inheritance (unfortunately, he examined examples of traits involving many genes, unlike Mendel, who was lucky to locate discrete genes). It took 20-30 years of debate and in the end Mendel's theory of heredity became part of the modern synthesis that includes evolution because they realized that in the end the nature of the mechanism does not matter to the very existence of evolution. The fact that today you don't hear about this debate - it doesn't mean that it didn't exist and was very strong at the time, so much so that biologists were divided into two camps. And this was about 40 years after the publication of the Origin of Species.
Excuse me Mr. Blizovsky:
But I didn't ask for proof, there are enough. Please read what I asked.
Give an example of the path where evolution was refuted while developing this science in the same way that quantum theory, for example, developed.
There have never been tracks that based the findings on anything other than evolution.
In a state of criticality that strives to zero during the process of developing the theory, it proves itself to be a religion and not a science.
The characteristic of religions is this quality of criticality that aspires to zero. of a situation that does not allow raising other solutions and of a situation where there have never been different other solutions. This is the same criticism directed at creationists.
Someone, Netzer explained to you that in this way - that every proof is invalid in advance (don't bring me this and this and this), it will be difficult to bring proofs that satisfy you,
Machel
You wrote a lot but didn't deliver the goods.
You have not provided exhibits/movements/or rebuttal evidence. According to the example of the development of the standard model. The absence of this feature in the research makes all your words a tautology.
You cannot provide a single example of a disproving finding that led to conclusions that led to another non-evolutionary path.
When all the roads lead to the same goal, it is a desire or faith.
In the capital market there were and are many traders who were successful in their bets for a certain period and during that period they thought and were considered the kings of the universe. Those who understand how the system works.
Where are they today they disappeared crashed when it turned out they were just lucky.
The ergodic feature takes care of balancing all long-term biases.
Evolution equals religion:
If your opinion of my suggestion that you do something useful with all your genius is that I'm brainwashed and an idiot - you probably can't do anything useful and all your (zero) strength is in blasphemy and nonsense.
I have given you many links that any reasonable person would consider extremely strong evidence.
I repeat only one of them so that you can't repeat the nonsense of "point mutation" (I already brought you the link before, but then you probably didn't look at it because there were many others. Therefore - so that you don't get beaten again by your distraction, I Transferring only him this time):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
someone:
Evolution is disprovable, although the chances of anyone succeeding in disproving it are extremely low.
You didn't understand what I said in relation to a scientific theory.
So that you can understand things (of course - only if you bother to equip yourself with a brain) I will detail (again) a little more.
Evolution - like all scientific theories - is the result of a combination of two things.
One is a collection of findings discovered through experiment and observation. This collection of findings serves as the "axioms" of the theory.
The second is a mathematical system of heuristics.
What is important in the theory is that mathematical system of inferences because that is the part of it that allows prediction.
Prediction is important for two reasons:
One is that it is what makes the theory useful.
The second is that the predictions of the theory can be used to disprove it.
However - disproving the predictions of the theory through an experiment is not the only way to disprove the theory. The theory can also be disproved by pointing to an error in the mathematical inference system.
A system that is pure mathematics is not considered a scientific theory because it cannot be refuted - but that does not make it incorrect. This makes it "tautological" - that is - "so true that it is self-evident".
Evolution is very close to this situation because, by and large, beyond the observations I will discuss later, it is based on a simple mathematical foundation that is easy to prove.
This is not about a single mathematical theorem, but about a collection of mathematical theorems, each of which asserts - in different variations - the following:
If:
1. There are entities that can replicate when during replication there is a small probability of error
2. An error in replication creates an entity with different properties.
3. The entities are in competition for resources, the degree of their success in this determines the degree of their success in reproduction
then:
Evolution will take place (that is, entities will gradually emerge that do better in the competition for resources).
If, in addition, some of the possible changes in attributes lead to a change in the type of resources needed, many types of entities will gradually be created, each of which specializes in utilizing other resources.
All of the above is math and logic. This is not a scientific theory but a mathematical theory and therefore - if there is no mistake in the mathematics - it is self-evident and irrefutable.
On the basis of this mathematical theory, all kinds of technological solutions were built, some of which I listed in a previous response.
These solutions wouldn't work if the mathematical theory was wrong and the fact is they work.
In order to confirm or refute the existence of evolution, the observations on which its axioms and predictions are based must be attacked by experiment and observation.
The observations on which the axioms are based are simple to test.
Are there replicating entities that meet the conditions I mentioned?
There is and there is! It is possible to discover such entities at any level - if these are genes, if these are living beings, and if these are families.
In other words - the fulfillment of the basic conditions for the theory can be tested in reality or, in other words - can - in principle - be refuted.
Note: the word "principle" is very important here! Not only non-scientific theories cannot be practically disproved because practically - even a correct scientific theory cannot be disproved! This is where the importance of the word "principled" comes from.
In principle - it is possible to show that genes do not replicate at all, or that their replication is completely accurate and never contains errors, or that a change in them does not affect their success in utilizing resources, etc. and thereby contradict the evolution of genes.
In principle - a similar thing can be done for any type of replicating entity and show that these entities do not undergo evolution.
Practically - of course - this is impossible because genes do replicate, yes with mistakes, etc.
There are theories whose predictions do not speak of a single event but of statistics.
Quantum theory is like this and it is not possible to determine in it what will be the fate of a single particle but only what will happen to the particles on average.
Evolution is like that too.
Therefore, its course cannot be predicted exactly.
This makes disproving it through an experiment that discusses a single individual impossible.
Experiments that challenge the predictions of evolution are experiments on entire populations.
Evolution predicts that bacteria will "learn" to overcome antibiotics - and that is what is happening.
Evolution predicts that animal domestication will work - and it does.
Evolution predicts that there will be intermediate stages here and there that connect the various creatures - and that is what is happening.
Evolution predicts that if lizards are transferred from an island where the main food is type A to an island where the main food is type B - there is a chance that a new type of lizard will be created - one that has not been seen before on the first island and certainly was not among the lizards transferred to the second island - that specializes in utilizing type B food.
If you read my previous comments you saw that this also happens.
Evolution predicts that if we start producing substances that were not in nature before - there is a chance that creatures will develop that have learned to derive their living energy from these substances - and this is what is happening.
Evolution predicts the extinction of certain species and the appearance of others as time passes - and that is what happens.
Therefore, it is clear that evolution exists and works.
This is not proof that other forces do not also exist, but it is by definition a very strong confirmation for the existence of evolution.
And what about other powers? God? An intelligent creator?
If a scientific theory is formulated in relation to them it will be possible to deal with you.
So far this has not happened and it also seems unnecessary because there does not seem to be anything in nature that evolution does not explain.
Descendant of Kal
Knows what! Let's say you are right and evolution is true.
But I assume you are a person who adheres to scientific criticism and healthy skepticism and therefore:
Surely you can offer another interpretation for the development of life apart from the evolution approach.
After all, in all other sciences, scientific development is accompanied by great criticism and skepticism.
Quantum physics went through several iterations and many theories that were disproved until it settled on the current standard model.
Why such a process did not exist at all in the theory of evolution.
This is a theory without doubts and without question for all its believers.
Therefore it is suspect of being a religion.
Evolution equals religion? If so, this is the only religion that says believe only in proven things. And in fact she says that every study updates the belief.
A scion is just the opposite.
For 10 years this award stood - and apart from chattering, the evolutionists did nothing
As an example the site I linked to
They always liked to give examples about evolution and say "here is the proof" without letting him answer.
However, in every confrontation with the offeror of the prize, they got the upper hand - watch the clips
Evolution is a religion - you are a believer
51 The so-called izchat hummus...
The site you provided and the link you provided are precisely from a site that shows that the offer is a scam. whose entire purpose is to sling mud with the help of an anonymous panel whose entire purpose is to sling mud.
In order to win the prize it was necessary (we will return to this) to prove a number of different examples of evolution including microevolution (a term invented by the inventor) and in addition the theory of abiganze the big bang theory as well as chemical evolution of elements from hydrogen and that evolution arranged the stars around the sun... although some things have Proofs But what is the connection between a needle and an ass... Of course, in order to prove his crazy definition of evolution, it is forbidden to bring fossils that might prove a change in certain life forms. It's like assuming that in order to prove creation, you also have to prove Chinese medicine, astrology, and the existence of the great harlot from Babylon, as well as that God sewed Rabbi Ovadia's dress, all without using words...
Of course, the anonymous panel, which is not obligated to publish its conclusions or even fade away, is a difficult problem, but the most difficult problem of all is that you cannot receive the award or even meet the inventor
The money fell ill in 2007 and the inventor was allowed without a shadow of a doubt for tax offenses...
To be honest, after reading what you wrote, I was sure that I was serious that I didn't understand the irony in your words.
For the same weight, I would like to issue a reward of one million shekels to the person who will be able to prove the existence of the color blue.
In order to prove the existence of the color you will have to convince a distinguished panel called my left egg and my right egg. (together with a chairman I will appoint)
In order to prove you will have to provide proof of the existence of blue according to my definition which means
1. The universe cannot exist without the color blue
2. That blue is the most beautiful color
3. that light blue is also blue
4. That all objects in the universe are blue
5. That if Maccabi Haifa was blue and not green there would be no offset in the Luzon league
6. That there is not, was not, and will not be a replacement for Michael Gordon.
In addition, you will not be able to bring blue objects as evidence for the existence of the color blue, nor evidence based on wavelengths or visible range.
Finally, my panel reserves the right to decide if you deserve the money and if you have proved it correctly without the right of appeal by any body and does not have to publish reasons
I am not going to answer the conditions of receiving the award or the question of whether I have the money at all, but if by chance you manage to prove something in the opinion of the honorable panel members, then we will talk about how and when you will receive the money, but I would not count on it happening in your lifetime......
Machel
On the current site there is a comment that you yourself claim that a theory that cannot be disproved is not a theory.
But that's exactly what you and your friends think about evolution.
is funny.
In 51 the ardent opponent of evolution gives a link to a page detailing how far-fetched the claims of other opponents are.
I find these discussions tiresome, on the one hand people who no matter what you tell them will continue to hold their opinion, and on the other hand also.
Although one of the parties is "a little" more reasoned.
What do I think?
My opinion is that you are brainwashed and an idiot
Since all serious researchers think the opposite of you - you must think you are smarter than everyone else.
I suggest you take these tons of wisdom and do something useful with them.
Maybe you will invent some medicine or build some device that no one has thought of.
What do you think?
Have you ever done anything to base your pathetic arrogance on?
Here is an official confrontation within a university
The creationist who offers the prize confronts no less than three scientists who support evolution - and exposes the charlatan
You support evolution out of ideology - there is no scientific support for evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw
It's all bullshit - if anyone could, they would take the money
Apart from lies, there is nothing in evolution (except micro evolution)
Evolution is a religion not a science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsgyqPOdytI
to someone:
I think I flattered you when I compared you to a broken turntable.
Lakkashen from comment 51.
Since there are many hundreds of experimental confirmations for evolution - it is clear that the guy who "offers" the prize does not intend to check the confirmations honestly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/#comment-54992
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Machel
Evolution is not a science equivalent to physics or mathematics.
It is merely an interpretation of a collection of observations. An interpretation that is built in a way that cannot be refuted just like astrology. And those who believe in it also believe that it cannot be disproved, therefore it is not a scientific theory. The whole part that deals with targeted predictions and confirmation or disproof experiments does not exist in this pseudo-science.
If you are convinced that the collection of observations on which the theory is based cannot provide an alternative theory then it is not science. Read Karl Popper.
Come on evolutionists here is your chance to make a quick $250
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can provide any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. * My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
http://www.kent-hovind.com/250K/challenge2.htm
someone:
I see you are careful not to read the rebuttals provided for each and every one of your claims.
Are we witnessing here the evolution from man to the broken turntable?
someone:
It is certainly possible to base realizable predictions on evolution. Certainly there are technological applications based on it.
How were the domesticated animals of our day created? Where did the cow come from?
Humans have unknowingly created evolutionary experiments for centuries.
Anyone who deals with hybridization of varieties will give you very detailed predictions about the product.
On what basis do you say that there is no significant and wide application? Do you have a broad enough background or knowledge to make such claims? (Or do you have a hidden agenda beneath these judgmental claims?)
There are not a hundred other theories. There is only a creationist assertion that is not moved by any tests and demands that the tests be applied only to evolution.. If evolution had failed in just one experiment out of the billions, the scientists would have thrown it away, a fact that it has survived 150 years of comprehensive examinations every day, only for emotional atoms like the creationists it is not enough.
Every day articles are published dealing with evolutionary prophecies, from millions upon millions it is no longer possible to count, but you will continue to close your eyes and say that there are no prophecies and no proofs. The simulations are applied in fields such as artificial intelligence and robotics. You may not be knowledgeable in these areas but that doesn't mean they aren't used.
Machal, Avi Blizovsky:
Evolution is an interpretation of the past altogether archaeology. There is no uniqueness in this interpretation over 100 others. Evolution is not a science on which to base viable predictions. If there was one, it would be possible to create technological applications based on it. But there are none. Simulations do exist, but not those that can be implemented. It is also known that laboratory experiments have been done that seem to confirm the theory, but this is not a significant and broad enough application.
someone:
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.
The evolution approach is applied in many places.
For example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
And here:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf
And here:
http://avida.devsoft.org/
And here:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
And here:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
Someone, come on. Go watch the NUBEMET videos on YouTube. Then we'll talk.
Michal Avi Blizovsky
The theory of evolution is an after-the-fact analysis of observed phenomena (sometimes also unobserved ones). It's just like analyzing the capital market backwards and trying to understand what drove it.
Just as nothing can be concluded from this analysis about the future, neither can it be concluded about the mechanisms that activate it. The inventions of the professors of economics about the market drivers such as efficiency and the like are the same inventions of the professors about evolution.
They have no real value because the prices and the market situation do not obey this or that theory but only for a short time until it changes without warning.
If you tried to apply the evolution approach to the capital market, you would maybe make money for a certain time and then crash.
In evolutionary computer simulations when random factors were introduced the result was completely random after a very long run.
someone:
And no one ever said that random and rare events don't have an effect. It does not contradict the evolution but settles you wonderfully!
someone:
You've already proven you don't know what you're talking about. You don't need to keep insisting on proving it with more and more lies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
For someone - the answer is both.
Both continuous things and jumps in cases of extreme change in the environment.
Machel
It's brain confusion and eye contact
Evolution is based on the assumption of continuity of processes and necessary natural selection
in nature But this does not stand the test of reality that it is precisely random rare events that determine.
Please read the book The Illusions of Randomness
By: Nissim Nicholas Taleb
In English Fooled by Randomness
Michael:
The answer is very simple.
The editors of the aforementioned film have no idea - not about evolution, not about probability and not about logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHsdhVxeyY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1fdRbniA6w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ_6HtX3cUI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9JEJOO3B8k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW26QB9craI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUunhGVMNLs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUSVoDkD5jQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Bk6b7DhxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD-kPEhq_ws&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdOZNVlOE98&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxTLrRvd4XQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaEpLqIK6w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3_0UKpIwZ8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwkRtfdYag&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnqMwGJNG7o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1AaIBzSCnY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLNUAN7nfw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOK-d3hyBlw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5-xBKJTwXY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er-dtLUvjwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Keif21WTWzs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq8mPm9k620&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFyitY9_9js&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4x1g_MM14&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs3GjdUjlwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNPV-MDVXrQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf1tAEKDSZE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj08ueDy8VY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWbicr1n5P8&feature=related
A man who understands
you did not understand.
"One day they will read your opinions and the opinion of all the Derwinites and make fun of you"
It already happened, about 100 years ago.
Today it's the other way around, the one who mocks the Darwinists is the one who is wrong and the one who gets ridiculed.
An amazing movie that destroys the theory of evolution
Come in and see if you have anything to answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlW19msWaa0
It's a pity that you confuse us with complicated words
At the end of the matter, you claim that man is a wonder of creation, a perfect machine, it is enough to see the eyeball and marvel at it, all of this was created by itself, in the beginning there was absolute zero and what created it was time,
I will not enter into an argument with you about how the first cell was created and who gave this cell the desire to create natural selection for the benefit of nature,
One day they will read your opinion and the opinion of all the Derwinites and make fun of you
Danish:
Is the fact that you don't read what is written to you a matter of principle?
I have no intention of starting to teach you first grade material.
Machel
Answer two questions:
1. How elements/cubes in nature know that they should cooperate and with whom to cooperate and if who not to cooperate.
2. How do they know how to choose in advance a specific series of combinations that will lead to some survival characteristic. And not in another series. After all, it is necessary to have a large number of choices that you add in a certain order to lead to the same feature.
And also try to explain the same thing in the properties of the particles that make up the universe.
How did the coordination between the different charges come about and how did certain symmetries come about and not others. How and why the quantum conservation laws such as color strangeness and the like create a match between them. Why is the thin constant determined with such a precise fit?
And why all the different force constants cooperate to create suns and stars. After all, it is enough to change one of the constants to prevent the melting process in the suns from occurring at the rate and in a manner that allows the building of star systems and galaxies.
In conclusion, what is the cause of the large-scale coordination of all the elements.
Danish:
I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time!
If the throws of the dice were intentional - there would be no need to choose.
By the way, the analogy with the cube is not the best analogy for evolution because there are additional throws here only in case of failure. There are better analogies but obviously all of this, Danny, is going over your head.
deer
If you yourself throw the dice you can claim that you have a judgment of choice.
But in front of you were only the dice, so who gave them the discretion to choose a six or any other number.
When did the dice become cooperative interest holders.
And who gave them the prophecy that they should choose certain combinations.
After all, in order to obtain a characteristic of survival significance, it is necessary to know in advance all the many combinations that must be made before obtaining the desired characteristic.
man,
I don't want to argue with you regarding your first claim, as if something could not be created out of nothing - but I would still like to point out the partiality of your claim.
In your words, you are referring to the substance that "is" which cannot possibly not have come from a divine source, but in fact this is not the face of things. Matter is nothing but a form of energy and so actually the question you want to ask is what is the source of the energy. This question may not be true either, since it is very possible that the total energy in the universe is 0, and thus the question of where the energy comes from has no meaning. The "is" is reduced to the question of where laws such as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum come from, but these are actually derived from fairly simple symmetry principles which, if they did not exist, you would actually draw religious conclusions from it (the law of conservation of energy, for example, originates from the assumption that there is no cosmic change in the world, and that the same An experiment will yield the same results if the conditions are the same - even if it is done at different times).
In short, there is "something" in the world, but even its scientific definition is very difficult and certainly its philosophical solution. Not for nothing has this philosophical question not been decided, and therefore it would be modest for you to acknowledge that one sentence of yours really does not prove anything.
Second, regarding your claim regarding the non-programming of the formation of complexity all of a sudden - you are ignoring here a central mechanism in evolution (actually "the mechanism") which is natural selection.
When a mutation occurs in a cell (happens spontaneously all the time) and it happens to cause its offspring to cooperate with each other by emitting a certain substance into their environment when they find food, there is a real advantage to this. When there is little food, the offspring of this cell will survive longer than their cousins without the mutation and thus a complexity is created which gradually over billions of years will bring the cooperating cells to the level of a person. The fact that man was not created in one day or by an intelligent creator has tons of evidence and it is enough to suffice that most of the DNA is probably garbage - that is, it does not deal with anything and its origin is simply that there was no evolutionary pressure to eliminate it (pressure that caused, for example, that man has no armor on his back , because it was more difficult than useful).
In the case of the Boeing plane that was created spontaneously in the Gobi desert, there is no evolutionary advantage since the plane is not capable of reproduction and therefore the algorithm of natural selection does not function here.
This is equivalent to the fact that if the chance of rolling ten dice and getting a six in each of them is very small and you will need many attempts to achieve this.
But on the other hand, if you roll ten dice and every die that didn't get the number six will be rolled more times until you get the number six - you will see that in a very short time you will get ten dice that all show the number six - the existence of a choice greatly shortens the processes.
man,
"The universe and creation are too beautiful and too wise to claim that everything was created by itself"
This sentence is so stupid that's why I'm not surprised at your vigilance of continuing your comment.
Another claim
The universe and creation are too beautiful and too wise to claim that everything was created by itself, the most elaborate explanation will not be able to explain it
See an elaborate Boeing plane, millions of parts to it, is it possible to answer that it was created by itself?
At first there was only glass, the one that the pilot wore, and although it is unlikely that it would automatically connect to the cockpit wall, but from the passage of billions of years, and it is obvious that time works whether for better or for worse... all the parts of the plane automatically connected, each to its desired place, without any deliberate thought And without a technician, it should be noted that such planes were built in the millions, each with a different flaw, one plane for example did not have the wheels attached to their place but hung on the tail of the plane... but out of the millions of planes it is obvious that one would have been determined to be created by itself in the perfect way, nevertheless, out of millions of planes one must have turned out well, And that's how the plane was created for him by himself, and thanks to the billions of years that helped him with that, hahahahaha the power of time...
Yes, man is a billion times more complex than an airplane, and time created him...
And now I sit and roll with laughter at those who are too lazy to fulfill God's commandments and choose oilier inventions that roll with laughter, to be an alternative to God
The author of the article here asks questions and answers them to his heart's content, but ignores questions for which he has no answer
Dear author of the article, please answer my humble question, how matter in the universe was created from nothing.
I have an answer - God, what is the alternative and non-evasive answer in answers such as: there has always been matter, or "I don't owe an answer to this, my theory begins with the fabulous and legendary Babylon ball from which the billions of galaxies exploded...
To Michael Rothschild for response No. 15 Hachhmati.
I don't usually intervene and respond, but after reading nonsense like in 24, the urge overcomes the habit,
This is because the words of the response for 24 consecutive times are abysmal ignorance, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding of the subject,
Inability to distinguish between proofs and ideas and so on,
And it has already been said that "ignorance is not a flag worth waving".
To commenter 24, Mrs. Chava Levy, no fossil of God has ever been found, not a wing, not a bone, not a claw, and yet you believe in this whole story.
Evolution has never been proven, for the simple reason: no fossils have been found to prove it. No fossil of a bear with a wing was found, for example.
The natural selection thing is true for that species. For example, the human who underwent evolutionary (developmental) changes, but not a transition (also the theory of our evolution from the ape has not yet been proven). There is even a species of lizards that exterminated the males and learned to fertilize themselves (natural selection is perhaps the strong, and not the strong, survives and not the strong 🙂
Regarding the Creator... all references to him, regarding his morality or how he created or did not create, are very human (for me, both science and religions are *identical* in their reference to him).
It is easy to humanize him and then come at him with complaints or praises, as if he is a person, like us. In my opinion, the relationship between the Creator and man is like the relationship between an ant and a man. An ant does not understand what a person is, it is beyond its understanding. This is how we are towards the Creator. Sublime from our understanding, even the scientific one.
Reform Dos:
Let's formulate your question a little more correctly:
Will he turn to a rabbi who surrounds him with love and lies or to a path free of lies?
Unlike the ultra-Orthodox commenters here on the site who express disdain and condescension, resort to factual lies and almost never provide any reasoning to support their claims, the commenters supporting evolution back up each and every claim of theirs with facts that cannot be denied and this also includes their claim that the other side is lying or showing ignorance.
I know who the undecided will choose.
More than that - the state of comments on the website has improved a lot in this regard and the number of comments based on ignorance and brainwashing has decreased over the years. True - there is still a lot of work, but this is my general impression.
Even more than that: there were cases here on the site of people from among the brainwashed side who were convinced by the arguments put forward by the supporters of evolution.
Of course, the opposite never happened because the opposing side never put forward any reasoning that was not refuted and engaged only in personal attacks.
There is also something very demagogic in your entire response - even if we ignore the details in it.
You ask who will he turn to: to the side of the rabbi who surrounds him with love or to the other side?
Have you seen any rabbi here on the site who wrapped him in love?
If you want to compare the sides in a fair way you need to ask one of the following two questions:
1. Will he turn to the party that gives reasons and also gets angry at the other party's lies or to the party that does not give reasons and also lies, curses, insults and blasphemes?
2. Will he turn to a rabbi who surrounds him with love and ignorance or a university lecturer who surrounds him with love and knowledge?
For some reason (and obviously for some reason) you chose to compare the militant and present element on one side with the conciliatory and absent element on the other.
to "Dos Reformi"
I don't think the science site is here to talk about religion in general or oppose it...
Every person has the right to choose what to choose a house to believe or not and I think that whoever opens the site should do so by judging and not bringing his opinions on religious matters and if there is a comment and of course it will be scientific then it is received in a respectful manner..
I myself am a religious person and I think that it is my right to believe in what I choose and whoever does not believe it is also his right not to believe. I am not looking to influence anyone so that no one will try to influence me... and this applies to all users of the site... "Live and let live" 🙂
In short, the scientist is a very cool site... and everyone should keep their faith to themselves... good night
My father - it is difficult for me to understand the policy behind the overall attack on the issue of the ultra-Orthodox in general and on the issue of evolution in particular. While it is clear to me that the overall strategy is to try to combat the increasing influence of the ultra-orthodox in the country (and my Nick indicates my opinion on the matter), the tactics employed by the site are not clear. The "crusade" could have been justified if he had tried to stop the phenomenon. In this case, the scientist would have become a source of knowledge with the help of which those who are considering repentance from pseudo-scientific reasons would learn on our side. Unfortunately, science serves the opposite purpose in this context. In practice, the scientific site pushes the undecided into the loving bosom of the repentant.
To illustrate the argument let's imagine for a moment that I am going through a spiritual period in my life (not science fiction), in this framework I am going to hear the other side. For the sake of the matter, let's assume that the local convert claims to me that "to this day we have not discovered any intermediate creatures between man and ape, or that all the main species of life were created in a relatively short period of time, or that we have not discovered new proteins." After listening to the rabbi I want to hear the science and as fate would have it (or Google) and I choose this site and put forward one of the arguments against evolution. Will the scientist bring me closer to science or the repentant?
The general attitude on the site to those who ask questions about evolution in science is one of contempt and condescension. If a commenter challenges the validity of evolution, he is guaranteed to be called an ignoramus or a liar (or both) in a short time. To whom do you think my undecided father will turn: to the rabbi who surrounds him with love or to the scholar who offers him contempt and condescension?
Moreover, the overall message on the site is one of disdain for the very thought of repentance. The undecided (like most people) do not like to be underestimated. When you belittle a person they are less likely to accept your argument even if they are convincing. Again, instead of bringing the undecided closer to science, the scientist brings him closer to Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak and his ilk.
The main problem with the crusade is that it addresses the already convinced. The fact that you score points with former change voters does not contribute in the least to the goal of stopping the spread of the ultra-Orthodox. The Hidan website could have been an excellent tool in the war against the converts Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak. Unfortunately, in practice it serves the opposite purpose of what it was supposed to serve. As long as the attitude on the site remains as it is today your crusade is achieving the opposite goal. In Agudat Israel and Shas the votes are counted...
ravine:
After you "fixed" the settings matter, I will explain to you that this "arrangement" is also wrong.
To show that proving something does not prove it is constructive criticism.
To build correct answers you need to drop the base under the wrong answers.
I don't know why you think it's my duty to pay attention to everything you say.
You may not have noticed, but most of the commenters didn't respond to anything you said.
I reacted to what bothered me - and it bothered me a lot - and it still bothers me - and that is your willingness as a "secular" to lie for the sake of religion, which is the most harmful system of errors on earth.
Now - if we refer to the debate that we did have (and I really didn't find it appropriate to refer to the fact that your name is Guy and all sorts of other things that seem unimportant to me) then you did not respond to anything I said - including not to my first response.
And congratulations to the editors of the site who understand the difference between a lie and warning about a lie.
Container,
Please stop trying to interpret my words literally and try to understand the content.
When I said "religion of science" I meant exactly people like you - those who are able to accept only what has been proven in a scientific experiment and insist on ignoring the inability of science to explain everything. You attack with a ferocity that is too similar to the same behavior you criticize in religion. And according to your responses, I wouldn't be surprised if you asked to put me on the spot following the heretical words I wrote down.
As for the review - here I will admit my mistake. The correct term is constructive criticism and not positive as I wrote. And to explain to you a little what I mean, I will provide a summary that I found on the Internet for the existing types of reviews:
There are two types of audit transfer-
Negative criticism - the passing of the criticism is due to the fact that the criticism completely negates the right of existence of the thought of the other party, on whom the criticism is passed. And from the side of the criticism, there is no room for the other side, and he is completely wrong, and he must return to the only straight path, which is of course the path of the wise critic, who of course knows the only truth and all. The negative criticism is one that denies the right of existence of the second opinion that is seen as wrong.
Constructive criticism is one that respects the other person's right to choose to think differently, but at the same time it tries to build up the other side, and allow him to understand better on his own, what is more correct for him to do. The constructive criticism takes the person, and builds him into something more correct. It does not deny the person, but builds him into something more positive and better
Now that the definitions, as you like to engage in, have been well defined, what kind of criticism do you think you're passing on??
Personally, I am closer to the world of logic and science than to religion. Both in my professional training and in my opinions, but I understand the limitations of science at the present time.
Unfortunately, you continue exactly the line of thought of the article - trying to compare religion and science. I never made such a comparison and I did not claim that science and religion are the same. It is clear to anyone with an understanding that there is an abysmal difference between them and this is exactly what I wrote in my previous response (including my statement that I myself have quite a few claims to religion) but you chose to ignore the statements and continued to attack as if I raised a red flag in front of a raging bull.
Unfortunately, even more, you did not respond to any of my references to the article that are not related to religion, and there were quite a few of those. If you choose to do so, I would appreciate a factual dialogue that would enrich my knowledge and perhaps even yours.
The note to the site administrators - it is not clear to me how you allow to react in such an aggressive, aggressive and venomous way without any control on your part that allows a dialogue to be conducted in an adequate manner.
Ariel:
What do I say and what will I say?!
You say you don't know how to answer my claims but believe there are those who can.
Why don't you ask them and answer? what? Don't you need to know the answers? Can you believe without knowing?
The truth is that it turns out that it is. For example, the gossip about the deadly Sanhedrin.
I suggest you read These are my words on the subject
You will see there that executions were carried out in the name of religion even without a Sanhedrin.
In general - this whole topic of knowing the religion seems unnecessary to the religious.
That's why they were accepted in this survey Results showing that atheists know more about religion than others.
In addition to this, I must state that I am appalled by the things you define as moral.
If you really believe that it is right to kill Shabbat violators (or that it was ever right to do so), then in my opinion you should have responded to the articles here from an internet site in the prison because you are a dangerous person.
Ariel, spare our surfers the trouble. They understand that there are people who wholeheartedly believe in this primitive shamanism and still call it Judaism. It will not add to your name. will only subtract.
I wrote a comment about two hours ago, why hasn't it been published yet?
Ugh:
I just now noticed that you are repeating the stupid lie about the "religion of science".
Although I have already answered this idiotic claim dozens of times and I am sure that you will not understand what I am saying, but I will briefly repeat some of the correct facts on the matter.
The word "religion" is derived from a Persian word meaning "law"
Religion is first and foremost a set of rules of conduct.
It is a religion and not just a set of laws because it derives its authority from a non-human source - whether it is God - whether it is race theory or Marxism - these are all extra-human sources of authority from which humans derived laws of behavior.
The problem with extra-human authority is that a set of laws that rely on such authority cannot change (and this despite the fact that the set of laws supposedly attributed to that authority were enacted by humans).
That is why such a system is dangerous and this danger materializes before our eyes every day.
Now - does science meet the criteria of religion?
He does not meet any of them!
It does not have any set of rules of conduct - this already rules out the claim that it is a religion and this is also the reason why no one has yet killed anyone in the name of science while in the name of religion they do it non-stop.
There is also no extra-human authority in it - except one and only - the experimental test. A scientific theory that fails the experimental test will be invalidated even if it has ruled the dome for hundreds of years.
In short - there is not even one similarity between science and religious belief.
Science is a method used by us to study reality.
Religion is a system of rules of behavior that bases its authority on all kinds of false claims about reality and is therefore generally against science that exposes its lies.
ravine:
I know you wrote "there is support". This is part of the smoke screen you spread to make the nonsense claim of "scientific fact" while reducing the chance that anyone will understand the manipulation you are trying to do.
You announce "I will not drag you into an argument" because you know I am right but you are not ready to admit it.
Are you trying to claim that all you wanted to say was that evolution has support? After all, that's what they said in the article too, and you went against it! Maybe stop lying?
You are in favor of criticism but on the condition that it be positive. Walla?! What exactly is a positive review? Can you explain what you mean because in your response you defined the claim that something does not prove the religion as something that you do not accept and this claim is not even a criticism of the religion but a particular claim that claims to prove the religion and does not.
Therefore, it is understandable that even criticism of something approaching religion seems "negative" to you - so what criticism exactly is legitimate in your eyes? Only a false criticism that will say that a claim that does not prove the religion does prove it?
No one said that religion should not be accepted as a cultural sociological document of utmost importance.
Nor will any sane person think that a system of ideas that mortally harms the strength of the country - whether in its economy or in its security - is not of utmost importance. In other words - religion has importance even nowadays and not just historical importance!
I assume that the current importance of religion would also be agreed by that deaf woman who in 1966 was forced to be raped by her married brother-in-law only because she was deaf and her husband died before she could conceive - all this within the framework of the religious coercion laws that command hibum and allow one to be freed from it only by a haliza ceremony in which deafness is prohibited Part.
All those who were beaten by the chastity guards and all those who murdered prime ministers or all those who care that it happened will agree to the current importance of religion.
And if there is current importance, then there is certainly historical importance. No one claimed that there is not, but you can no longer find anything to say, so in a transparent demagogic exercise you try to answer claims that have not been made in order to create the impression that your comrade made them. Yes. This is another lie.
It is not clear to me what the purpose of the prophetic part of your words is.
I mean - he is also not true and I know quite a few people who left the religion after people like me or Yaron Yadan enlightened their eyes - but why did you suddenly find it appropriate to engage in prophecy? Is it out of concern that people like us will waste their time?
And what about arguments with you? Do you have a chance to be convinced or are you also completely brainwashed?
The titles I called you are titles that describe your behavior.
I also gave you a lot of serious arguments which you make sure to ignore.
And you're still talking about the level of debate! How are you not confused?!
Container
You see that the subject of religion (or anti-religion) burns in your bones and therefore also harmed the reading comprehension.
If you read carefully, you will see that I wrote explicitly "there is support in the theory and it is the theory that dominates the scientific discourse today" and this is not a lie but the same as what you wrote yourself "..that there is almost no other scientific theory that has received as many confirmations as evolution".
If you want to narrow down the wording "scientific fact", I won't be drawn to that, but it is clear that my intention in the wording has been understood.
I'm in favor of criticism. This is important for self-examination, development, and creating a platform for an infringing discussion for both the reviewer and the reviewed (which I hoped would happen following my response), but as long as the review is positive.
It is clear and well known that religion contains negative elements and is not perfect, and I myself have quite a few complaints against it. However, between that and its complete negation (and it should be accepted, if not as a way of life as the religion asks, then at least as a sociological and cultural document of utmost importance) the distance is great and is not acceptable to me. Not as expressed in the article and not as expressed in your heated comments until Gadi Gicho.
And a point for thought - why do so many people believe in some religion as opposed to belief in the "religion" of science. I will allow myself to answer - because science is not able to answer all the things that we experience in the world. You, my friend, need to recognize this fact and once you realize it, your reaction will be less emotional and more matter-of-fact.
Another point for thought - the article is scientific and written by a scientist for the scientific reader (which is why it appears on this website) and not philosophical. With facts it is hard to argue but with faith it is impossible. Therefore, the writer's attempt to confront religion and the world of faith will never fail. And this is my review of the article. Unfortunately, you failed to understand my intention in the response, so I explained the issue to you in a way that is not ambiguous.
And I guess you'll forgive me if I ignore all the fancy profanity you sprinkled throughout the response. I was hoping for a high level of conversation and intellectual discussion, but I received responses at the level of those appearing on the Walla website or paraphrasing a phrase from the Torah - I went looking for a monarchy and found Athens.
good evening
Michael,
There are reasons for everything, to come and call everything religion does primitive mainly indicates a lack of trying to understand the essence and purpose of religion.
For example - the desecration of Shabbat - in a reality where people believe in one God who constitutes reality and gave a set of laws that guides man whether in Sana'a or in Persia, and one of the main ones is the Sabbath.
A person will come, after two people have permitted him not to do this action because it is forbidden, and he actually does it - this shows an apostasy to the same God, then how can it be that you believe in Him and yet do it? and therefore will kill.
You know that an epidemic that killed one person every seventy years was called a "killer", and I assure you that even during the Mishna period, the amount of Shabbat offenders, men's blasphemers and other death charges was more frequent than once every seventy years. – How is it going for you? But the BID would always look for merits and "loopholes" in the law of not applying the law to the person if there is a possibility to exonerate him - in the hope that he will repent and not be killed. Go through the Sanhedrin mask.
Of course, in our time, the majority of Jews are "captive babies" - that is, you cannot come to a person who grew up in a secular society all his life, which allows anything as long as he does not (physically) harm another, and accuse him of being homosexual, breaking the Sabbath, having sex with a woman A person, etc., because he transgresses a mitzvah and will therefore be killed - for this we need a kingdom in Israel, according to Torah law and the Sanhedrin.
There is also a reason for Liebom and Halitza - refer to Rabbi Hirsch's book "Horub" on the tastes of mitzvot at this time (written in 1837, the beginning of the reform movement), and you will see that Halitza is not delusional at all. Regarding the case you mentioned, I find it very strange, but if you show me the ruling including its sources, I would be happy to look at it, and ask rabbis what the reason is.
Two more things - first, I don't agree with the conduct of ultra-Orthodox society regarding Torah study - if they really study Torah all their lives, I have no problem with them receiving taxes and even more than what they deserve now (Rebak, can any of us live on a stipend of 1000 shekels a month?! ), my main grudge against them is that some of them are registered in yeshiva, receive Avrach scholarships and yet work illegally and do not pay taxes. Such people really need to be monitored and brought into the workforce.
The problem in this case is the ultra-orthodox rabbis - as long as a person studies in yeshiva even a quarter of what he is supposed to learn, he is still in a certain framework that keeps him in their community - as soon as he goes to work, he will probably "break down" and leave the community completely - something that prevents the rabbis from sending people to other settings.
Today, the number of ultra-Orthodox who go to the army and to work is increasing (slowly and carefully), but the secular public does not exactly accept them (those who do not enlist are evading, those who do are just primitive blacks - I didn't say that) so maybe they are not the only ones who need to take stock.
All of this is about the ultra-orthodox public - the national religious public manages to combine a religious way of life with work in a great way (in my immediate environment there are judges, accountants, lawyers, doctors, educators, etc., all of whom keep Torah and mitzvot, and in Gaza I will also start studying soon ) And yet there is a part of it that devotes itself to studying Torah all its life, usually people who do not work for us, and really immerse themselves in the world of Torah, and we must support them financially.
Second thing - regarding morality. You claim that Judaism is a moral of primitive tribes from thousands of years ago. According to this, I would expect that the religious (Orthodox, knitters) would be the least moral people in our country, their children would be less moral, and the public as a whole would be the same.
In fact is it really so? Try to look with an objective eye (without media interference as much as possible) at the groups of boys who hang around in the gardens at night and vandalize property, 12-year-olds who rape their peers, people who get drunk and rape, cause accidents at night, and many more of the sick evils of our time and tell me where they are from.
Do you think it's a coincidence?
Rabbi Kook writes in Orot Kodesh that secular morality has a certain truth, it is not a complete lie in itself. The problem begins when morality collides with lust.
Will being moral make you not cheat on your wife (hopefully you consider it immoral), not go drinking with the guys, or at least say no to a glass of vodka, remain a shift driver or stand in front of the guys and tell them what we are doing is wrong .
Most of us are not able to resist these things - who more, who less - if we think we won't be caught. This is immorality, this is fear, which is of course much less than it.
The knowledge that there is something above you that is always testing you, watching and knowing your actions makes you
Be more "moral" in the first place. And this is the lower side of true morality.
A real case of morality that comes to my mind - the members of the Hesder yeshiva receive a card from the army that allows them free travel by train and the selection of "Kim" buses, and discounts on the other bus companies. Sometimes it happens that you show it to the driver at Egged or Dan, and he tells you to get on, it's free. Would you go up because the driver gave you permission, or because you know that the company is responsible and she doesn't agree, you have to pay.
The rabbi who ruled the halakhah in the yeshiva was asked - and he answered unequivocally that it is robbery even if the driver agrees, because it is not his money to give up. All the guys who heard the ruling don't hitch a ride on the driver but pay for the trip. How many such people do you know who would pay?
I completely agree with you that the religious society is not blameless either and it is not an all-blue Talit.
You can find immoral people everywhere, so I ask that you do not give me such and such examples, because the individual does not indicate the general.
And of course not the other way around either, because it is clear to me that there are very moral people in secular society, the question is whether this morality stands on a solid foundation and whether its order of precedence is really correct.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience and knowledge to prove my claims to you in depth, but there are rabbis at the Meir Institute (they have an excellent website with classes on all subjects), and in other places, who would be happy to correspond or maybe even meet with you and discuss any subject in the world.
good week.
ravine:
Well, if you so desire, come and expose the lies in your words:
Let's start with the question "what is a scientific fact".
Well: there is nothing like it in the world.
There is a scientific theory. There is no scientific fact. There is a scientific theory that has received many confirmations and then it is accepted.
There is a scientific theory that has been disproved and then the scientists do not believe in it.
There is a scientific theory that has not yet been sufficiently confirmed or disproved and then the scientists are more doubtful about it.
There is - I repeat - there is no - "scientific fact" and therefore the claim that evolution is not a "scientific fact" is only intended to undermine the public's trust in evolution without saying anything.
This is at best.
In the worst case, maybe you just chose the wrong term but you actually meant to say that evolution is not a scientific theory that has received a lot of confirmations.
In the best case, therefore, it is a demagogic lie and in the second case - a blatant lie - because there is almost no other scientific theory that has received as many confirmations as evolution.
Its situation in the reliability index of scientific theories is better than that of the theory of relativity regarding which it is known today (and in fact it was known since it was created) that there are situations in which its predictions are wrong.
So we've gone over your first sentence.
Let's move on.
In the next sentence, you complain that the author of the article does not content himself with arguments in favor of evolution but makes arguments against religion. You accuse him (what a joke!) of trying to settle accounts with religion.
You should read the title of the article again. "Creation versus evolution". Neither theory should be immune to criticism. It is true that the insult in the name of religion is the only effective weapon that its defenders have and it is true that this weapon was well used by the Muslims who managed to get the sane people to download some cartoons, but that still does not make the claim justified or logical.
For some reason it is allowed to attack any opinion but religion? God forbid. Just do it and they will immediately issue you a contract.
But what exactly happened here? The guy didn't even say anything that should hurt religion! He simply said that a certain argument does not prove it. And the argument really doesn't prove it, but you, since you have nothing to say, resorted to the idiotic argument of insults and called the things "cancelling and contradicting religion" and "closing accounts with religion".
Tell me: if I said that the truth of the Pythagorean theorem does not necessarily follow from the fact that one and one plus one are two - would you complain that I am going against the Pythagorean theorem and closing accounts with him?
of course not. Here, too, you resorted to the weapon of demagoguery to throw sand in the eyes of humanity.
further?
"I do not come to defend religion"
really?
Not only do you come to defend religion - you throw away all the values that are worth something in order to defend it.
You lie because of it, you humiliate yourself because of it, you attack science because of it - and then you allow yourself to lie to us that you are not here to defend religion.
"It must be remembered that the Bible, for example, gathers within it a tradition, a system of laws, morals and also a great deal of knowledge, which, even if it is not accumulated through scientific experiments,
It is proven today, in retrospect"
The system of laws of the Torah and the Bible is a murderous and immoral system of laws. The morality in them is best suited to cave dwellers and the knowledge was known before these books were written.
All the words I used have a backup.
The backup for a murderous word
Part of the backing for an immoral expression
The "miraculous" examples you bring to "scientific knowledge" are controversial at best. In fact, these are all urban legends. On the other hand - it is very easy to find completely wrong "scientific knowledge" in the holy books.
Does the rabbit live, as written in the Torah? Do the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source?
You are welcome to read here and save yourself some of the humiliation in the future
Audio.
I'm sick of.
I said that the response is long-winded and false and I could write an entire article about the lies in every sentence of your sentences.
I have other things to do so sweet dreams.
If you want - you can refer to the things I said, but if you continue to lie, I will continue to call you a liar.
I just have this kind of flaw because of which I think lying is much worse than telling the liar that he is lying.
Container
After all, you can't expect me to respond seriously to your links after you used such a blatant and condescending wording
And by the way, Mila Archani and morphing, but what does it have to do with falsehood?? My feeling is that these things clashed so strongly with your worldview that all you could do was launch a frontal attack and that's the best you could come up with instead of having a substantive discussion.
Guy (the original):
I immediately realized it wasn't you 🙂
I would like to disavow Guy's words (6)
This is a completely different gorge
Shabbat Shalom,
Guy (from the discussion on consciousness)
ravine:
I don't have the strength to relate to all your chronic, false and empty plagiarism, so I will only ask you how you relate to this fact OrThese findings
First of all, I think it is important to start by pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution is still only a theory, even though there is support in the theory and it is the theory that currently dominates the scientific discourse, it is still not proven and accepted as a scientific fact.
and for the article,
In general, the feeling that comes from the article, and especially in chapter 2, is as if the writer came to settle an account with religion and faith "...the argument does not at all prove the correctness, or even the faint plausibility, of any religion from the great historical religions". If you want to make arguments in favor of the theory of evolution, it is acceptable and reasonable. But to use the same stage to abolish religion and attack it, this has no place in a purely scientific article as the author came to present.
I do not come to defend religion, but it must be remembered that the Bible, for example, gathers within it tradition, a system of laws, morals, and also a great deal of knowledge, which, even if it is not accumulated through scientific experiments,
It is proven today, in retrospect, to be true and for a number of examples - circumcision (reduces the chances of getting sexually transmitted diseases), eating meat and milk together (however possible but not recommended in terms of the digestive system), types of food that religion forbids eating (proven to be unhealthy food). You can also mention the Hebrew calendar which is accurate up to ten thousand years ahead and much more.
Also in this chapter it is stated that maybe there were several creators in the world because: "One created the predators and the other the preyed upon?" (Because it is strange that the same person would create creatures whose purpose would be to destroy other creatures he created.)
It is clear to all of us, that every predator is itself preyed upon (perhaps with the exception of man, who is a super predator)
And that the purpose of the predator is not to "destroy" the other creatures but of course to maintain the instinct of life that pulsates within him. Apart from that, predator and prey relationships constitute an elegant and excellent braking system like no other for maintaining a status quo of the number of individuals in an ecosystem.
In section 3, the writer states that "...just copies the problem to another place instead of solving it". The same can be said about the big bang theory. By the way, it contradicts all the basic laws of physics and to mention one - the formation of matter from nothing.
If there was nothing, a singularity, and then the entire universe was created and everything including the laws of physics in it. After all, in my opinion, this is equivalent to the act of creation. And what were the laws of physics and science before the big bang? Here, too, the elephant is standing on a turtle that is standing on...???
In chapter 6, the writer talks about continuity and gradualness. I partially accept the following claim. However, it is difficult to understand how a number of single-celled cells decided to unite into a complex cell in which there is a clear division between the different functions in the cell (energy production, replication, etc.)
If anything, in our world, things in general tend to be at the lowest energy level they can find and therefore, it makes no sense that a successful unicellular system would suddenly become the opposite of a complex cell, something that undoubtedly required the expenditure of energy beyond what is required for the unicellular existence by itself.
But the peak comes in chapter 7 where a writer claims that "the fact that man exists in the world is accidental". This is an arrogant statement which does not indicate the writer's modesty. The world is so complex and there is so much more that is unknown. However, the writer explains all the wonders of creation using one theory and not only that, but even pretends to understand in such a deep way that he comes to the firm conclusion that human inventions are accidental.
It is also worth noting that man is the only animal that violates the laws themselves, the author noted: the maximum number of individuals that can exist is limited - man has learned to deal with nature in ways that allow him to disrupt the natural balance and reproduce almost without limit and even in a way that threatens to consume the natural resources. Also, precisely the fact that most of the genetic material in the world is shared between the different animals indicates centralization and hence, perhaps, even indicates that there was one creator who built all life in a similar way (as we design computers today - despite the fact that today's computers are extremely complex and successful A lesson from the first ones, they are still built according to the same principles - IO management, memory at different levels - from CACHE to hard disk, BUSes, etc.)
In my opinion, the article, despite the successful parts of it (those that refer only to the theory of evolution) is not coherent (I still haven't been able to understand what the writer wants to say in the paragraph about the birth of man) but presents parts of things and more than trying to teach us about the theory of evolution, it comes to teach us about the writer's attitude to religion and belief in general.
Personally, I partially believe in the theory of evolution. That is, there is intrasexual but not intersexual evolution. It is clear to me that this sentence will draw a lot of fire in my direction and especially from those who consider the theory of evolution as their Bible.
Shabbat Shalom,
ravine
Ariel:
These are the laws of religion.
This is exactly the problem with religion - it requires us to live according to the moral laws of primitive tribes from thousands of years ago when we have already progressed and we know that these are terrible laws.
It commands us to stone homosexuals and Shabbat breakers who have not done us any harm, it includes what is written in the link I gave you and more.
Do you know that in 1966 (!) the court required a deaf woman who was widowed before she gave birth to be raped by her (married) brother-in-law because the Jewish religion does not allow a deaf woman to go through the (humiliating and idiotic) ritual of stripping?
That's how far the modern coercion of caveman laws goes.
All of this, of course, is based on the fact that this is what God wants who was not created and does not call.
That's why the laws of these horrors can't change either because no one knows like that flying spaghetti monster!
Of course, it doesn't end there - there are modern developments to the matter such as the wonderful "morality" that allows yeshiva students to escape the burden of security and the burden of the economy.
I know all these laws - you will open a treatise on inscriptions, yavmats and in fact most of the order of women on the Gemara and you will see things that will seem to you to be many times more absurd than these laws in Rambam.
Ok, so you (and sometimes I too) have a problem with understanding different laws on the subjects.
Have you ever tried to learn something from the real moral theory, or what were the social norms that led to these laws?
Each era has its generation's arbiters (without entering into a debate about one rabbi or another) who bring the Jewish tradition and Halacha into practice, but only they, those who know the spirit of the Halacha, can discuss these cases according to Judaism.
To come and say that because the laws written in the spirit of a certain period do not seem ethical to you these days, and therefore we will have to disqualify the entire religious establishment, seems to me a bit like an excuse.
By the way, if we're talking about morality, try to bring up all kinds of moral issues that come to your mind (military, medicine, etc.) and look for who deals with it - you might be surprised to find that arguments from Jewish law are still used in many places, to strengthen one side or another - a ridiculous thing Basically assuming that religion is fundamentally immoral.
Michael, there are articles and books written by Orthodox rabbis on "problematic" topics such as the status of women in Judaism, human morality versus divine morality, psychology and Judaism, sacrificial work, etc., I would be happy to refer you to them on Shabbat evening.
Shabbat Shalom.
Ariel:
I completely disagree with your approach in the field of science as if the world was created ancient (what? Just to deceive us they planted dinosaur skeletons underground?) but let's leave this debate and focus on the moral side of religion.
In my opinion, this is one of the least moral systems of law imaginable.
Here's a little to get a taste of that morality
There are many articles on the subject, and different approaches throughout the educated religious world regarding the theory of evolution and the creation of the world.
In general, most rabbis agree that it is not possible to understand the process of creation according to what is described in the book of Genesis (see Egrets HaRa'a - Egrets Tsa and Morah Nebukim), so that a person can be religious and a believer and, in addition, a scientist and a rationalist, if his only problems are these.
Apart from the fact that in order to come and make logical assumptions about the Creator - you need to understand Him - who He is, what He is, whether He is spiritual or physical, whether He can be measured by scientific means, etc., which is not possible as part of His non-earthly definition.
Especially questions like - what is his purpose in the creation of the world, his desire, is the good we define according to our moral level is the absolute good, etc.
Most of the questions you asked will not come up at all when you leave for a moment your point of departure in which anything that is not defined by experiment and measuring means is an error, but you will accept that there are things that are sublime from our human understanding, which we do not need and cannot investigate (the opposite is not to believe in the evil eye , amulets, virtues of demons and spirits - Rambam's method)
In fact, when I, a religious person, come across such "contradictions" - the big bang, evolution, etc. - I accept the scientific truth in the theories, but do not force the reality in the past to be based on them - for my part, you will say that the world was created before 5771 as an ancient world 13.7 years old A billion years after an apparent evolutionary development.
When we understand that our basic premise should be that religion is the way of life, and it is absolute, compared to science which is only a means of our existence in this world, and nothing else, then it seems that the questions disappear by themselves, and that it is possible to combine science and faith without contradictions between them.
Good and rainy winter!
Nice, but I still haven't understood how from inanimate matter comes out material that replaces the theory of evolution