In an article from Friday in the Ma'ariv supplement, Menachem Ben claims that the world is much dumber than we think and all because science accepts Darwin's theory of evolution and for some reason rejects Pastor Paley's clock argument. hello Is it a literary critic or a person who seeks to ignore nature?
Distinguished readers found the differences: Haaretz, book section - new books corner: "Charles Darwin Autobiography - Charles Darwin. From English: Yikki Mänschenfreund. The stories of the person who contributed the most to the development and spread of the theory of natural selection: the English naturalist from the 19th century. Last thing: Dr. Oren Herman. Resling Publishing, 153 pages, NIS 84."
Ma'ariv Yom, Friday, April 4.4.08, 29, Shabbat Supplement, Literature and Books section, p. XNUMX "Although it is a bit excessive to call an autobiographical essay of less than a hundred pages an "autobiography", nevertheless, it is a partial biography (published by Resling, translation: Yaki Manschenfreund), which he wrote One of the greatest intellectual fools of all time, Charles Darwin, the inventor of the theory of evolution, which was never a theory, but an infinitely stupid theory (that is, a hypothesis), whose overwhelming claims of stupidity, some of which are quoted in this book, were heard as soon as it was released to the world. "
Is it possible that Haaretz's positive message and Maariv's negative review are talking about the same book? Is it the same man? Is Menachem Ben the Jewish religious man, who prefers the Anglican priest William Paley to Darwin, because it introduced to the world an argument that is still used today by the haters everywhere - "It is impossible that the wonderful forms of nature, wonderfully engineered, beautifully designed, were created by chance, in a way A blind evolutionist." By the way, this is not the first time that Menachem Ben has attacked Darwin. He does this at every opportunity And in one of them Prof. Yosef Neuman replied to him as his reward.
I have not read this specific book, and I will be happy to report on it as soon as it comes into my hands and if it is possible to also publish a chapter from it, as is customary with other book publishers, but I have read enough books by Darwin and books like "The Blind Watchman" that blast Paley's argument to pieces and I am also following the preparations for the celebrations The 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book On the Origin of Species, planned in Britain for 2007.
I also read enough previous biographies, from which it emerged that Darwin was a modest person and that he did not want to stand out, that he did not want to scare the public and wanted to back up his claims with evidence until he almost lost the primacy of the Torah he developed to Alfred Russell Wallace. If it weren't for his modesty, the scientists who followed his path might have had difficulty proving the heavy claims. On the contrary, all the very important discoveries that came after the publication of his theory - starting with the discovery of genetics, quite a few people stumbled upon Mendel's book at the beginning of the 20th century, through the discovery of DNA and the mechanism that enables heredity, and is also prone to errors, and even the human genome project - all of these Strengthen the theory and make it one of the most important in the last thousand years together with Copernicus's discovery that the earth revolves around the sun and Newton's gravity, and the theory of relativity and the quantum theory.
The fact that he was modest regarding his intellectual prowess, and had difficulty reading Shakespeare fluently, does not make him a moron like Menachem Ben's language.
Only thing, even particularly stupid rabbis will not try to impose the cosmology of the book of Genesis (the sun hides at night behind a curtain and travels from west to east to shine the next day), so there is no reason to accept as a language the millennia-old biological understanding of the authors of the Tanakh. Their respect is in their place, evolution is not a theory (from the word hypothesis) as Ben argues, but a scientific theory (a fact in fact, although it is forbidden to state the explicit word)
The fact that Menachem Ben thinks that mutation is just something that causes the birth of a calf with two heads is really funny, the fact that he repeats the well-worn claim that he was the intellectual guru of all infidels including the Nazis - this is already audacity. An apostate is someone who is not ready to accept the religious convention that Ben and his friends consider a fact, to me it is not a rude word, the addition of the Nazis to this sentence is intended to imply that those who do not believe in God in a certain version (which? The Jew, the Evangelical Christian? The Catholic? The Muslim?) are equal to the Nazis .
And if we use Menachem Ben's words, we will come back and ask, who is the idiot?
About the book from the website of Resling Publishing
The theory of evolution through natural selection is considered by many to be the most revolutionary scientific theory. Its principles have been applied in all areas of life, starting with economic markets and urban planning and ending with robotics and semiotics. This is the most effective theory for explaining the variety of forms and functions in the biological world, and it is even used as a tool that can be used to examine the limits of human consciousness, as a metaphor that can be used to understand the development of culture and as a philosophical challenge to the place of the human race in the world. Evolution - both in the abstract sense and in the most tangible sense - is in everything.
For the first time, this book offers the Hebrew reader an autobiography of the person who contributed most to the development and spread of the theory of natural selection: the 19th century English naturalist, Charles Darwin (1882-1809).
The autobiography, parts of which were first published in 1887, provides a unique first-hand glimpse into the life of the young man, who went on a five-year journey to map the coasts of South America and returned to the West carrying the dangerous idea that changed the course of human history. Here we find Darwin struggling against the old beliefs about divine design and private creation, face to face with the disastrous effects of his theory on the religion and philosophy of the Victorian era, until he finally publishes his great book: "On the Origin of Species".
However, in the autobiography we can also get to know Darwin the family man, the amiable naturalist and humanist who had a strong affection for his fellow humans. The autobiography of Charles Darwin is a portrait without embarrassment and full of sincerity, which serves as a rare window into the life and thought of one of the greatest scientists of all time.
Attached to the book is an enlightening postscript on the fate of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as a bibliography for further reading, by Dr. Oren Herman from Bar Ilan University.
117 תגובות
Some commas Jimmy.
This is how someone who has nothing to say writes. Science is not the wisdom of the Gentiles. If you see the opposition of the Christians to science and certainly of the Muslims, you will understand that science is a scoundrel in the eyes of all religions. They are willing to live only with the good parts of it, for example medicine. But then again, even if most of the world is seduced by anti-scientists, it won't change anything. Science is the closest thing to the truth. The fact that religions do not change does not mean anything about their righteousness, but only about the organizational power of their suns.
My dear soul!
To your question, I am a Jew, I am not familiar with the laws of our religion, since the return to Zion began out of faith and by religious Jews, but unfortunately in my days, the State of Israel changed its face and trailed after the Gentiles, and instead of being the head, we became the tail, and this is how we appear. and new models for tomorrows that are hidden and reestablished from time to time. What is true of yesterday is not true of today and what is true of today will be true of tomorrow. See the state of the youth and the state of the country corruption, violence, drugs, the corruption of the body and soul, the humiliation of the woman's body, slavery, worship of money, honor - in quotation marks, murder Incest, adultery, adultery of the poor and the poor, and the list goes on and on. On the other hand, the morality of education through the land and the truths of the world according to our heritage and teachings has existed since our ancestors until today. And one generation or years without opinion turned their backs on our heritage and look where we have come. Any nonsense can be said to be science and hide behind the new religion called science - whose truth changes every time.
My dear soul!
To your question, I am a Jew, I am not familiar with the laws of our religion, since the return to Zion began out of faith and by religious Jews, but unfortunately in my days, the State of Israel changed its face and trailed after the Gentiles, and instead of being the head, we became the tail, and this is how we appear. and new models for tomorrows that are hidden and reestablished from time to time. What is true of yesterday is not true of today and what is true of today will be true of tomorrow. See the state of the youth and the state of the country corruption, violence, drugs, the corruption of the body and soul, the humiliation of the woman's body, slavery, worship of money, honor - in quotation marks, murder , incest, adultery of the poor and the poor and the list goes on and on. On the other hand, the morality of education through the land and the truths of the world according to our heritage and teachings has existed since our ancestors until today. And one generation of opinionless people turned their backs on our heritage and look where we have come. Nonsense can be said to be science and hide behind the new religion called science - whose truth changes every time.
Again, it is not certain that 90% but a significant part of the inhabitants believe in the creation of the world. A few hundred years ago, all people believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.
So what.
What is important is the scientific truth and not the number of believers in it. I would very much like everyone to "believe" (an imprecise definition because science by its nature does not entail belief but to compare the terms) in science, and among other things I provide scientific news every day so that people know what it is about. But what can be done, the merchants of faith who sit in the bible belt of the USA, in the papal residence in Rome, in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the basements of Tibetan monasteries, and in Bnei Brak, have more power and much more resources than the universities. This does not make them right of course, not to mention that they also argue with each other whose belief is correct.
post Scriptum. Jimmy, now it's a holiday everywhere in the world, so where exactly are you writing from? Are you not committing any offense against the laws of your religion?
To my honorable father.
I understand all the high talk about science etc. That you believe that your ancestors are monkeys, I and most of the world in numbers about 90% disagree with you, you as a scientist can check the data.
Wishing you a happy and kosher holiday.
Jimmy,
You claim that 'most researchers in the enlightened world today reject... Drouin's error'.
This claim, although it is found in the mouths of many religious preachers, is wrong and even completely false.
According to a Gallup survey conducted in 1991, only about 5% of all engineers and scientists in the United States deny evolution. In other words, 95% of scientists and engineers agree with and accept the theory of evolution.
but…
It is interesting to note that this result was obtained from a sample of all engineers and scientists, including those who do not understand a thing and a half in biology, such as computer engineers. When a similar survey was conducted among scientists involved in earth sciences and life sciences, they found that out of 480,000 scientists and engineers who participated in the survey, only 700 of them agreed with the idea of creation and rejected the theory of evolution. In other words, of the scientists who know the field of life sciences closely, only 0.15% deny the correctness of evolution.
This is from a survey conducted in the United States, where the number of creationists is the highest among industrialized countries. When a similar survey was conducted in other countries, they found that the number of scientists dealing with life sciences and denying evolution is less than 0.1%.
And in conclusion, almost all scientists accept the correctness of evolution. Those who disagree with evolution are a marginal minority, almost always coming from different fields of knowledge.
Happy holiday,
Roy.
------
Come visit the new science blog - Another science
Jimmy
Science is not a democracy, and the fact that religious preachers in all kinds of places in the world manage to convince the ignorant masses does not mean that they are right. Science is also not local - there is no Israeli science and American science or European science and Asian science. Science is shared by everyone, and if science says that man is descended from monkeys, then even if you don't like it, it's the truth.
To all the dear souls "man is allowed from the animal" a reminder to those who have forgotten that monkeys are animals for the purpose of the matter I am clear that none of the respected writers would agree that we think their ancestors are animals. Another thing is that most scholars in the enlightened world today reject with disgust - as the words of Abel - Derwin's error. It is a shame that only in Israel, which teaches the doctrine of the Gentiles, and that too lagging behind the nations of the world, are still lagging behind on this issue that the other nations have already renounced or are acting on.
It was said by the sages and geniuses of the people of Israel for generations, "Wisdom from the Gentiles comes from the Torah from Israel" and indeed the people of Israel are the leaders of the Torah until the Gentiles even try (unsuccessfully) to wait for it.
fresh:
Roy was not talking about creating good things but about creation in general.
In any case - science did not create these things. Science only created the knowledge that made their creation possible.
Science does not tell anyone what to do. It is merely an outline for the investigation of reality.
Religion, on the other hand, does not create anything - it only tells people what to do and in many cases it tells them to do terrible things.
Religion also acquires the power to influence people by lying to them and telling them about some creator of the world who will punish them if they don't do what whoever invented the religion wants them to do.
One of the most advanced cultures in ancient times was the ancient Greek culture.
In this culture there was no god who commanded the people how to behave. There was a belief in the gods, but these gods engaged (according to that belief) mainly in wars among themselves and all their influence on humans was due to their selfish reasons.
It is true that religion is a clever trick that can instill order, but enlightened people do not need it.
In any case - even if religion had a positive contribution in the past, today - that past has passed and the remaining influence of religion is mostly destructive.
According to evolution, man developed from a type of monkey and therefore - at certain stages in the past, living in the trees had a positive contribution to his survival. This is no reason to go back to living in the trees.
Roy tried to present an image as if science creates good things and religion has no good things to its credit, which of course is not true.
One of the factors that removed humanity from the lives of violent tribes that fight each other is religion. In ancient times there were no policemen to enforce laws and no courts, every believing person was his own policeman and thus contributed to the creation of order and discipline, reduced violence/theft, etc. and this contributed to the development of a civilized civilization, (which now allows all those in the know to mock them).
fresh:
And why do you say drugs are a good thing?
After all, it is also possible to poison with them and I suppose there was even someone who was killed when a bag of medicines fell on him.
As stated here many times and as Noam repeated and explained - science is a way to find out the truth about the laws of nature. He is nothing else.
fresh,
You repeat boring and irrelevant things.
Science is presented here solely as a method to expand human knowledge.
What do we do with this knowledge - that's a completely different question, and it has nothing to do with science.
Roy
I don't want my words to be interpreted as going against science, that's not my intention (but I know I won't succeed in that...)
Science not only led us to create medicines, airplanes, cars, air conditioners, space shuttles, it also led us to create atomic bombs, hydrogen, biological weapons, a high standard of living that destroys the same planet we live on and endangers the very existence of humans in the future.
Science is neither "good" nor "bad" science is simply power, it can be used for good or bad, wisely or foolishly.
Uncle,
I asked you for serious proof that my interpretation of Euphrates and Tigris is incorrect. You answered me that "it depends on the degree of self-development and understanding of each person personally".
In other words, there is no standard for what is right and what is wrong. Everything depends on the person who reads and interprets hatred in his eyes.
I repeat that in this case, there is no way to decide what is true and what is not, unlike science, where experiments rise or fail in the face of reality. This way of testing has led us to create medicines, airplanes, cars, air conditioners, space shuttles and virtually every technological tool you rely on today. What does the Kabbalah or the Torah have to merit their comparison?
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
------
Come visit the new science blog - Another science
Uncle,
I will address the points you raised one by one:
"How do you distinguish between a charlatan, etc. ":
------------
Your teacher's answer "depends on the level of self-development and understanding of each person personally" does not surprise me at all. If you read it again, with an open mind, you will understand that this is an evasive formulation of the real answer: "There is no objective way to distinguish between a charlatan and a real barista"
I don't want to doubt your abilities, nor the abilities of your teachers, but it is important to understand: it is not possible to make significant progress in human knowledge if there is no reliance on the knowledge of many people from different places and different times, and this is possible ** only if there is an objective method ** to extend the quality of the information, transmitted from person to person.
This is such a central point that its importance cannot be underestimated.
Newton said: "If I lost sight, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants"
In order to "stand on the shoulders of giants", that is, to use the knowledge of others, a common, objective denominator is needed to evaluate the knowledge and its relevance.
Any method that relies on your subjective and internal things personally, cannot be a basis for cooperation with others.
"The real teacher will let you deal with things alone, he will give you complete freedom in everything"
-------------------------------
I hate to disappoint you, but the world around you is much more complicated than you think. Gone are the days when any person, no matter how talented, could contribute something to existing knowledge, without long and tedious study in universities or colleges.
In order to say something significant about general relativity or quantum theory, one must first study advanced and extremely complicated mathematics for many years. It's frustrating, after all, only a few of us reach these high levels, but you have to recognize that, it's the reality. This is also the whole difference between postmodernist, New Age chatter about high dimensions, about parallel universes, and scientific theories about those subjects (string theory, for example) backed by precise mathematical calculations, which make it possible, at least in principle, to test the suitability of the theories experimentally to reality.
In simple words, whoever tells you that with the help of such and such gurus, and "strengthening self-awareness" you will be able to better understand the world around you, is deceiving you, and is basically just rambling without being able to substantiate his words.
"In general, there are problems in both religion and science"
------------------
The comparison you repeatedly make between science and religion makes me personally frustrated that I am unable to explain something so basic to you.
Science and religion start in completely opposite directions: religion (any religion) starts with the assumption that it represents the only absolute truth, and all that is left is to try to understand and interpret what the Holy Scriptures meant.
Science starts with the assumption that the absolute truth is not known to anyone, and you have to use an ** objective ** method to find out the truth.
The best and most successful objective method discovered so far is the scientific method.
By definition, there are many gaps in science's understanding of the world around us - this is not a disadvantage, nor a failure - this is the essence of the matter!
In religion, on the other hand, gaps or contradictions between reality and what is written in the Holy Scriptures, are a real catastrophe, and this is the reason for the supreme and Sisyphean efforts of the religious scholars, to interpret and argue and evolve to prove that there are no such contradictions.
The result is a horrendous waste of intellectual resources: instead of engaging in the study of reality and new discoveries, those sages engage in an awkward interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago.
in short:
Science holds: reality (truth) must be investigated with objective methods
The religion holds: the truth is already known, one only needs to find the correct interpretation (which is of course **always** in retrospect).
"In the Torah nothing is written for nothing, everything has a deeper meaning"
————————————————————————
really??? Who decided this???
This short sentence illustrates well what I argued in the previous paragraph, and of course has no objective basis.
This exact sentence constitutes an intellectual barrier to the progress of human knowledge.
As someone who comes back and preaches independent thinking, freedom of thought (and on this subject I am your humble servant, along with the entire world of science, with you of course), this is the first sentence you need to get rid of!!!
David, I have no desire to delve into the explanations of such and other rabbis regarding their interpretations of scientific discoveries that confirm their spiritual and religious world.
Not because I'm afraid to put my views to the test, but because ** their starting point **, as I explained above, does not correspond to my world view. This is much more important and significant than one explanation or another!
When I try to deepen my knowledge in quantum theory, for example, I come across things that threaten my common sense in an extreme way, much more than rabbinic quibbles and Hugin stories.
Despite this, I spend a lot of time, insisting on trying and understanding them, because the quantum theory is an objective scientific theory that has stood up to accuracy in a large number of experiments (even though it is clear to everyone that it is not perfect).
In conclusion,
The differences of opinion between us are about the way, the method, to obtain knowledge. What are the most fundamental and fundamental disagreements. I hope that if you equip yourself mentally, and think with an open mind about what I said, you will understand that the scientific way is the right one.
to Noam and Roy,
I consulted with my teacher so that I could bring you a factual and complete answer, and here it is -
Noam, you asked: "How do you distinguish between charlatans in the field and real Kabbalists (and Roy asked a similar question, in a different wording)?" - Well, it depends on the level of self-development and understanding of each person personally. The more you learn and develop, the more you will be able to understand yourself and distinguish between those who try to impose their opinion and worldview on you and those who try to help you develop your awareness on your own. Few are the only teachers of virtue who can do so without involving their personal ego in it and trying to duplicate themselves in you. The real teacher will give you the directions, the keys to understanding and then send you on your way to personal, self-study. You will have to do the effort and hard work (very much) yourself. Only what you achieve on your own will truly be yours, you need to achieve awareness by merit and not by grace. The real teacher will let you deal with things alone, he will give you complete freedom in everything. He will also let you fall and fail as much as you want. From the falls and failures you experience in life, that's where you learn the most (and this is true in every field of life!). He won't tell you to come do Shabbat with me and see how fun it is!, he won't tell you to put on a tefillin so that you feel spiritual and closer to God!
In general, there is a problem in both religion and science when you look at things in a fundamentalist way (even in science, the mechanisms are not always completely understood). Learning the secret requires independence of thought - this is the middle line, not extremism.
The world of freedom comes through understanding and this requires self-study, and independence in thought, if for example it is written that plants grew on the third day and there is no light (the dens were created on the fourth day according to the story of creation) how is this possible? If the entire Torah is true to the truth? - After all, it is clear that even in the time of Moses, they understood that light is necessary for plant growth, how did Moses make such a gross mistake? And if he was wrong, why didn't they correct this mistake by simply reversing the order of days? After all, from then until today there have been countless opportunities to "renovate" the story in "Shoshu" without anyone knowing about it! - So maybe we can put forward a "really ridiculous in its revolutionary" hypothesis that maybe things are not as they should be? Maybe we don't see the whole picture here? Maybe try just for a moment not to start from the base assumption that whoever wrote the Torah was stupid and ignorant? Maybe there is something hidden here after all? What do you have to lose? Are you so "fragile" that you are terrified of the thought that you might be brainwashed and fall into the pit of repentance by the opium for the masses? (Just note that now, at the moment of writing these lines, it's Friday in the middle of the night - Saturday - oh my, the lightning is going to strike me in a moment!).
In the example above, the concept of "tree" (the vegetation that was created on the third day) has abstract and much deeper symbolic meanings, and this means that we need to start investigating what is the deeper meaning here? And from that you have to continue to explore and develop further and further.
In the Torah nothing is written for nothing, everything has a deeper meaning. Indeed, whenever there is such a contradiction, the Torah does challenge us to investigate why this is so? What is the meaning of this contradiction? It is precisely there that mountains of hidden knowledge are discovered. And this is where you are wrong Noam ("A religious person stops at this point, he has no desire to put his faith to the test, and he simply "knows" that his faith is the absolute truth.") - the spiritual student (whether he will be a great Kabbalist like Moses or whether he will be a simple person like you or like me), and note that I'm not talking about the religious person!, he does constantly put his faith to the test, he constantly investigates and tries to learn, he never takes things as absolute and non-negotiable.
Michael, again and again (I've already given up on him and his blunt style) confuses religion and the religious with spirituality, he sees them as one. I want to tell you that most of the religious people in the world, even among those who study Kabbalah (various Hasidisms like Chabad), have no idea what spirituality really is! ! !
They, just like Michael, think that if they are religious who observe mitzvot and study Torah, Mishnah, Gemara and even read in the Zohar as a bonus, then by default they are also very spiritual! And so they also know with certainty the absolute will of God, and this already leads some of them to do terrible things in his name.
So far I have referred to Michael.
In the Ari Torah it is written that the act of Genesis is a secret.
In some Midrash it is said that the world is called Olam from the language that disappears - God is in double concealment, the Almighty God hid Himself in the world and hid the fact of His being hidden.
The Torah was written in secret and to understand it you have to study and develop and understand, there is no matter of mathematical proof here. The Torah was written in the language of humans, the Gra (the genius from Vilna) said that those who do not understand the secret, will not understand even the simplest - understanding the secret is a long and tedious process of study and personal effort (and you recited it day and night). The Torah was written in material "clothing" to "cover" and hide the secret. Even in receiving the sefirot, everything depends on the world of intelligence, it depends on the insight of each person personally, it is subjective and not empirical. Only Kabbalists of a very high rank, such as Moses, managed to write the secret in a secular language - it is very, very complex, and really not for discussion on one foot.
The explicit name of God - Yahweh - means: to come into being - this is the best symbol of evolution - Rashi said that everything was created in the first moment of creation (in the abstract sense) but it took time for it to come into being in nature in practice.
As for evolution, which you claim is contrary to the Torah and the Jewish faith, there is a midrash that says - the Holy One, blessed be He, builds worlds and destroys them - this is a symbol that there were all kinds of periods in evolution. (By the way, you can read a very interesting interpretation according to the Kabbalah for the age of the universe here - http://www.shevanet.org.il/09/09-16.htm).
Even in afi science where the idea of evolution is fundamentally correct, there are lots of holes in the theory that have no explanation! The claim about evolution of development by mutations is incorrect in my opinion because mutations destroy the system for the most part. According to my understanding, when there is a mutation, it is actually an epigenetic effect (for an interesting article on the subject - http://ifeel.co.il/message/file_url/57/278057/yablonka2.pdf). There is really no mutation in the gene, but the immediate environment, such as the various influences that the parents and even the grandparents passed on themselves in the previous generation, affect the heredity in the current generation. Such effects can open and close the function of genes - it looks like mutations but in fact they are not really mutations.
It is not really explained by evolution how suddenly new species were born in an instant, how there was suddenly a sharp transition from one species to another! I strongly recommend and even implore you to watch this fascinating video by Gerald Schroeder (see also the recommended books below) -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315
About six thousand years ago, the first human appeared who was developed and had a new level of self-awareness and had the ability to experience like ours, even though there were about a thousand generations of humanity before him.
Books that I can recommend you to read in order to get some of the answers to your questions and start your research journey with them -
1. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan - 'Meditation and Kabbalah' -
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%9F
2. Rabbi Yosef Gikatlia - Sefer Sha'arei Ora (you will find the introduction to it here - http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94)
3. Gerald Schroeder (Gerald Schroeder), a religious Jewish scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder)
• Genesis and the Big Bang
• The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
• The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
I hope my answer gives you the information you are looking for.
Sincerely,
Uncle
Hugin,
Try to write shorter and clearer things, sorry but I lost you several times in the middle of the association.
As a matter of fact - the more I research and, among other things, talk to politicians, I see that the world is indeed becoming more and more ignorant, ironically precisely when the technology created by the nerds is taking over it.
Astrology, for example, receives a strong resonance thanks to the Internet network built on the science of physics, which separated from it 400 years ago.
I recommend you read the short story "The Little Black Bag" which is in several collections of science fiction books so that you understand where it can lead.
post Scriptum. The most read article that makes it to the top ten almost every day is "The end of the world will not come in 2012". If you look at the members of this page in the 2012 Google search for the phrase, you will see that they all support the mystical position and not the scientific position. Thanks to this article, Hebrew readers have a source of scientific truth. So that you understand what we are dealing with here on the site.
Hugin,
I think you are missing something.
Almost all criticism of you is not related to your opinions, but to the fact that your strange and long-winded writing makes it impossible to understand your opinions.
I'll tell you again, for the umpteenth time, and this is also what everyone has been trying to tell you for a long time: you write in a confused way, you don't know how to present ideas in a clear and concise way, you use high words that you obviously don't understand their meaning.
All of this is a colossal waste of time. There are quite a few writers on the site, whose opinions I personally disagree with, but I have no problem having a substantive discussion with them. With you it is almost impossible.
If you want to get a factual reference, please first of all make an effort to clarify to yourself what you are talking about, and maybe later you will also be able to make other people understand what you are writing about at such tedious length.
Avi,
If you have not yet understood and internalized your site is the only site I have been attracted to since July 2008 and I do not like computers and the Internet by nature but books.
I am fully aware that you do not have anything bad for me personally, but only what you think I represent, and therefore you must understand that I am not capable of harming you personally, after all, these are matters of fluid perceptions and ideas as 'perceived' by people fed by a blind computer by nature, what else that my type runs away with advertisements (by the way, sometimes things are dragged to this by the very computerization that has taken over every good, simple part) but what to do? Life also sometimes requires you to be put 'on the map' out of a circumstantial necessity of being who you are to your tendencies/the tendencies of each and every person.
In any case, I recommend that you again consult withRoey Tsezana with four eyes and four ears :) and with a wiser consideration to decide what to do about the 'phenomenon of Kahogin, etc.'
If it comforts you, I will soon go abroad again for a few days and 'rest' will come to the poor :) Besides that, really, as is my habit and I am honest with every inch of my personality and I hope that maybe even in the salvation of my 'translation efforts' my part will be completed (as my controversial comments on your site) and I will come back with more You are for the joy of reading, and other important, interesting and fascinating things in my life, but in the meantime I have not yet finished my private research with you, you/you have not deleted the entire sequence of my responses and therefore I will continue until it is completed and maybe stop..
My father, the computer in my eyes is a terrible prison into which people have been captured. A device that has become an employer of humanity instead of the opposite! Have you thought how dependent the world will become with it? I prefer my skills and my private intelligence (of course, everyone depends on their nature) and not to live in this terrible box.
Life is much more interesting and real/reliable and talented than the devices, which are only meant to help!!
But this is my opinion and my view.
In any case, the world is not as ignorant as some of your people and expressions try to paint it, on the contrary.
Hugin
The problem is not personal with you but with your views and the views of those who are unable to respect the will of the rational to have their own website.
Look what happens to people who listen to you and your friends and forget the rationality outside.
I prefer to give people back the intelligence that the education system and the media that publish horoscopes have caused them to forget. If that doesn't suit you, please have thousands of astrology sites, where no one will criticize you and everyone will understand you.
Avi ,
In any case, I suggest that you consult and talk with Roi Tsenza about the whole matter, since I responded to his request before my trip and spoke with him on the phone a few days ago in order to check the consequences of the proposal I made before my trip and other matters reserved for publication, if desired, as an intellectual-thought challenge.
I believe that both of you, as colleagues, and as members of the same fraternity of species, there is talk and understanding between you, and that Roy is wise in his own way (in any case, he has a 'recognition' of the differences between the species and varieties and his hand is good at writing despite and to his credit his loyalty to your site.)
As far as I'm concerned, everything is open to your determination and decision, not to mention my tireless curiosity about the process in the matter whatever it may be.
Besides, my father,
Resilience, life and persistence in the values learned are part of my life stations at the moment and 'victims' of all kinds are evil to me. If you are not able to recognize the value of persistence, treat yourself and your guests who tease in vain about the 'Hogin phenomenon, etc.' and to accept my proposal that was written to you before my trip to Poland for Purim. (If you have not yet noticed my contacting you about it).
On the face of it, it is evident in your responses to me, that you are not impartial. I am sorry that your judgment is affected by influences that may actually suit your 'interest', but do you understand what it really is?.
Avi:
Do you understand?
If you didn't understand - then Hugin said this to Noam.
This of course leaves open the question of who the answer was aimed at if you understood but it's just a joke.
The sad joke is that she doesn't understand that Noam said he didn't understand her either.
I allow myself to add that as far as I understand (but maybe I didn't understand either) Hugin doesn't understand herself either.
David (response 84):
So what? Your arrogance now calls us idiots? What do you base that on? Of course nothing - like the rest of your claims.
You contemptuously call me a "know-it-all" but among us - the one who confidently asserted claims that he did not know (and which were therefore so easily disproved) was precisely you.
You told us that there is no contradiction between the Torah and science.
This is of course not true. Many things are written in the Torah that simply do not correspond to reality.
You claimed that the Torah is not a book of history or science.
This is of course in clear contradiction with what the Torah claims for itself. In general - what was the point of the author of the Torah to make historical and scientific claims if he did not mean to say that they were true?
You said that the Torah is a spiritual guide to a way of life.
Tell me - what is so spiritual about the stories of history and the science in it. And what is spiritual in the system of laws that she tries to instill in us with threats?
In any case - if it is a spiritual guide, it is a rather abominable guide. He instructs us to murder all kinds of people who have done us no harm and he gives us as an example of morality our father Abraham who threw his wife and son into the desert and was ready to slaughter the remaining son.
No one turns the Torah into pure history and science, therefore when you talk about such a person (response 62) and claim that he is wrong and misleading - it is you who is wrong and misleading.
Everyone knows that there are also things in the Torah that are not science and history.
Any reasonable person also knows that some of its laws are clearly immoral.
On the other hand - why are you suddenly talking about "pure Torah and science"? Have you forgotten that in your previous (false) words you said that there is no Torah or science in it?
In short - response 62 (and not only her) is a great demonstration (by you) of the shock you are trying to impose on me when you say ironically that I "know everything".
You were probably offended that I so easily showed that there was no truth in your claim.
Sages already noticed the fact that the Torah is full of nonsense like a lemon and therefore wrote various things to "reconcile" between it and reality.
Some of the things they wrote about this are nonsense in themselves.
Another thing they wrote is the receipt you refer to.
You claim that the Kabbalah must be read to understand the Torah.
I claim that in order to understand what is written in the Torah, it is better to actually read the Torah.
In the Kabbalah you can at most find what the writers of the Kabbalah thought about what is written in the Torah.
Tell me: What is the source of the authority of the Kabbalah?
And I ask you not to start with the lie that it is or something from the Torah that was given orally to the Israelites at Mount Sinai because it is - as you know - in contradiction even with what is written in the Bible.
Do you want to believe all this nonsense?
This is your right, but you have no right to present your belief (which is very easy to disprove, as mentioned) as "knowledge" - all you know.
In response 67 you talked about science and said things about it that simply show you have no idea what it is.
This is another presentation of things you have no green idea about as "knowledge".
You also wrote the blatant lie that Judaism encourages the search for truth.
Then - when I showed you in response 71 that you were talking nonsense - you switched to a personal attack that lacks any basis and logic - an attack that you have not stopped since and in which you did not say a single true thing either.
Throughout the entire debate you failed to deal with any of the claims I made, but you know everything and we have to believe you that if you say that these claims are demagogic (do you even know what the word demagogy means? It doesn't seem so based on your use of it) then these are certainly demagogic claims .
Now tell me, David: Is lying a better way of life than accusing a person of lying?
You say that if I had done it face to face it would not have ended well.
What does it mean except that by doing so you have exposed the fact that you are not only a liar but also prone to physical violence?
I'm really excited by the claim that religion develops the internals so that scientists can claim that the earth revolves around the sun without being thrown in jail.
where do you live?
Don't you know that the reality is completely opposite?
Is it not clear to you that if it weren't for religion no one would have been thrown in jail because of this type of claim and only because of religion people were actually thrown in jail?
Of course you know, but demagoguery is mandatory, isn't it?
The situation according to him is this:
The scientists are thinking people who can propose such a theory.
The sane people who are not scientists are able to hear this without throwing the person who says it in jail.
The believers are the ones who will throw a person in jail, torture him and even be ready to execute him because of these claims.
In light of your words about saying things face to face - you would also be afraid to tell Hod your credulity/violence face to face.
I do hate religion because it leads people to crazy, violent and harmful actions in almost every possible way.
One of the reasons for my hatred of religion (which must be distinguished - as I understand it - from hatred of the religious) is the fact that it causes people like you to be so closed that they cannot hear my words without developing a personal hatred for me and this fact is constantly demonstrated by you.
I see that you realized that you deviated from a substantive discussion, but how can you not blame me for that?
Know that a truth teller would not be able to do this.
Well - in the rest of your comment there isn't much written, so I'll stop here.
Avi,
If you didn't understand, I said this to Noam with honesty and respect.
And all that is dear to me too.
Hugin,
David says clear things, even if I think they are wrong.
In most cases you don't even say the wrong things - just a jumble of words and punctuation marks that don't connect to any idea or anything meaningful.
My advice to you: before you write on the website, try to explain to yourself in simple and short words what you want to say. If you succeed, we may then be able to consider your ideas objectively
Hugin I'm forced to intervene because I see you're back on your toes again. If the path "searching through the methods of science" does not suit you, you are welcome to enter one of the countless sites where science is a curse. Why do you have to just respond?
pleasantness,
I think David made you an honest, true and fair offer.
There are things, concepts, and achievements that only you, in your desire, and in your desire to understand more and more yourself, life in general, as in your way 'searching through scientific methods' can achieve them within yourself (with an interpreter, without an 'interpreter' or however your neighbor wishes.)
I do believe that 'your oath in all that is dear to you' (from the morning of the puzzling fifth dimension) is honest to yourself, and if so also acceptable to me (since I do not know you personally but through your words on this site only - as a given).
If you are not cynical, go for any intellectual "interpreter" that teaches wherever he is and any given opportunity (as an object, a person, a desire, and your healthy observing mind, etc.)
Successfully.
As for the dead: they are our souls, we are alive and we love their memory dearly.
Hugin,
In the interesting article about telephone conversations with the dead, a certain device is described that produces random and incomprehensible noises, together with a human translator who helps those around to understand what is being said.
Your case is remarkably similar, but the translator is missing.
Do you think you can fix the situation?
It's a bit funny that the concept of the 'batter' has become a racket and that acquired stigmas have turned into squashed ping-pong balls and the game called: logical and ideological bickering sometimes become hot arrows in the fire of disgrace.
After all, Mechabat is a concept put on those who return to teshuva. And the 'teshuva' is, after all, what is it??
A person without inner faith is like a leaf blown away by the wind (and whatever his faith will be, according to his nature, his character, and his concepts rooted and acquired with the learned years out of necessity, or from a tireless desire to understand himself - his inner consciousness - his real awareness and any other sensory or logical and integrated cognitive way, etc.
So blessed are those who believe at least in their way or their heritage and if it is good and benefits both the heart and the healthy mind, what is good.
In any case, I believe, that even those who defy against,, and it doesn't matter who and what, inside of them at least understand. And if not now later, if they want.
Uncle,
There is no disputing that everyone is allowed to believe what they want - provided, of course, that their belief does not detract from the rights of others.
In a framed article, the Jewish religion - or the religious establishment in Israel - definitely violates the individual rights of the non-religious!
See, it is absolutely clear that not everything can be proven yet, and because of this, every person, even a scientist, believes in certain things, even though he cannot substantiate it.
So far, I guess we have no disagreements.
The controversy begins regarding the question "what next?"
A religious person stops at this point, he has no desire to put his faith to the test, and he simply "knows" that his faith is the absolute truth.
The trouble is that our world is full of different and different beliefs, and therefore different and different people, each of whom "knows" that only his own belief is the absolute truth, and all others are infidels or fools.
I am a skeptic by nature, I look for proofs and confirmations of the things I believe in and am not willing to be satisfied with the statement of an "authority", be it a rabbi or a priest or a Buddhist monk, that this is "the absolute truth and you should not doubt it".
And most importantly, when I come across a reality that contradicts my belief or opinion, I change my position and do not try to quibble and be clever or ignore it, in order to adapt the reality to my belief.
I asked a simple question before, and still haven't received an answer:
You said that there are many charlatans in the field of Kabbalah and secret teachings. How do you distinguish between charlatans in the field and real Kabbalists (and Roy asked a similar question, in a different wording)?
The question may seem innocent, but it is very fundamental - if you don't have an objective way to differentiate, then you won't be able to differentiate between a secret theory and just nonsense!
This is exactly where the scientific method is fundamentally different from all beliefs and religions and the New Ages, etc.
Uncle,
Thanks for the detailed answers you provided. I would like to focus the discussion on one important point.
You claim that religion and the Torah deal with the internals of man, and that all the historical/scientific arguments in the Torah reflect only spiritual claims.
As an example, you bring the Euphrates and the Tigris, and I quote - "The Euphrates and the Tigris are rivers - ask what water symbolizes, a flow, a river from one source that splits and try to relate it to the world of concepts of the theory of conscious mind and human consciousness."
I would like to offer another explanation for Euphrates and Tigris. In every reservoir of flowing water there are millions of small creatures - crabs, insects, fish, etc. If we compare the flow of water to consciousness and the flow of thoughts, then it can be concluded that in the human consciousness there are millions of small creatures that infest like parasites and lay their eggs inside our consciousness.
In addition, since the Euphrates and the Tigris do not in reality come from the same source (even though the Torah says they do), it is quite possible that the writer intended to illustrate the difference between a man and a woman. Because as the man and the woman were created from the same source in the Torah, in fact they are very different from each other. Not only that, but the reality that shows us that man and woman were not created from the same source, also shows us that they will never join together. Because this is so, we should not have intercourse (as derived from the Euphrates and Tigris being forever distant) but abstain from each other.
Can you show me conclusive evidence to disprove my alternative explanation?
If not, how can you treat the Torah as a book that helps you learn about the theory of the soul, when you can derive any possible idea from its verses?
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
The last two paragraphs in my previous answer are intended for Noam - I got confused in the editing.
Good morning Oren,
Michael yesterday already exhausted me and I went to sleep, that's why I didn't answer you.
I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and computers. Not a PhD student in physics like all the enlightened "geniuses" here.
Does the academic degree define here who can open his mouth and voice an opinion? If I didn't say the word diploid then I'm not considered educated enough for your highness?
Get out of the movies and your antics! You are so inflated of yourselves it is unbelievable.
Again, I'm not against evolution, I believe in it just like you!
It just bothered me that Michael the "know-it-all" and others like him treat religion as nonsense only because they themselves don't believe in it.
In general, if you don't believe in something, don't dismiss it and call those who do believe in it a liar - that's simply impudence and a lack of patriotism. I'm sure Michael wouldn't have dared to talk like that to people face to face, it wouldn't have ended well! So why all this verbal violence? Is this the level here of all of you? Just one big disgust.
To Noam - the Torah and Kabbalah deal with the internals of the person, so how exactly can you distinguish the signs of achievements whatever they are - do you read the thoughts of those around you?
Science is about the outer world, and spirituality is about the inner world! What are the benefits of spirituality? With its help you improve yourself as a person, learn about your inner mental processes, learn to know yourself better and thus the other person as well. Why is it good? So that human society can be more enlightened, open and tolerant so that scientists like you can, among other things, propose revolutionary theories such as that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, without being thrown in jail and killed.
According to you, all internal affairs are delusional? Do you think a thought is just a sequence of complex chemical operations inside the super sophisticated robot called a human being? I don't think so, I believe so, my right!
All I claim is that there is no contradiction between faith and Judaism and faith in science and practice in it. They do not contradict each other.
To Tommy, I thought when I started commenting here yesterday, that there are enlightened people here who are searching for the truth, I tried to imply on several occasions how the path of spiritual inquiry is carried out (see above in my previous comments).
But people like Michael are sufficiently opaque and fixed in their thinking that they do not perceive that I do not oppose them in their scientific beliefs, they forcefully make me an enemy with burning hatred and do not perceive that I am talking to them at all about a completely different layer - complete opacity.
I talk about the symbolism in the rivers and the like, and he answers me then why is the Jordan not included? Really, why isn't the Amazon included? What God is so stupid? Is this a level of substantive discussion? Can this be taken seriously? Come on, are you serious?
If Michael would make an argument, without using rude and predatory language, I would argue with him matter-of-factly. But instead he ran over me with a rough foot, thereby causing me to deviate from discussing my issues (I'm also human) and then he claimed with a genius that I don't answer the question and this is the winning proof that I don't know anything about my life and that all I represent is nonsense an absolute one.
Now Michael can relax in his armchair and write himself another V - another threat removed from his invincible faith.
If this is how you prove to yourself the righteousness of your faith and your way? You are very, very far from everything that science and freedom of opinion represent!
Is this basically conclusive proof of your justification? There is no difference between you and those dark and compulsive "religious people" whom you love to hate so much!
In the name of science and behind your bombastic titles, you pour out amounts of venom and violence that recall very dark periods in human history.
I feel sorry for you that you are so full of hate. I believe that science as well as the Torah must be in a pleasant way.
Happy holiday to you all.
Uncle
The secret theory helps you learn about your personal inner self and thus the collective human inner self. Until you enter this world you will never see and experience achievements (will you dare to experience something that goes against all your beliefs? Is your belief strong enough and are you ready to be put to the test?)
I said before, it's all a matter of faith, if you claim it's all delusional and mumbo jumbo, until you experience it yourself, I'll never be able to convince you! How can the metaphysical be proven by the physical? There is a contradiction here, isn't there?, my geniuses?
Pine:
David will not answer your question because he does not tend to answer substantive questions.
Despite this - we do know what his academic background is.
It's good that at least he stopped wasting our time.
oak:
You are making a grave mistake.
The scientists do not at all say that someone directs evolution and it is easy to see that it really is not directed and a large part of the mutations it creates are harmful and even fatal.
All hereditary diseases are the result of mutations that occurred in evolution (and this is just an example).
Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs in any environment where certain conditions are met - very simple - of the existence of entities capable of replicating themselves with a small probability of making a mistake in the reproduction that compete for resources and survive as a result of their success in this competition.
That's why evolution can also be used as a tool in environments that have nothing to do with biology.
There is, for example, a whole family of computer systems that solve different problems through evolution.
The evolution in these systems is not of genes or animals but of approximate solutions that gradually evolve towards the optimal solution.
In short - those who try to understand what it is about see that there is nothing at all to compare the scientific approach with the religious nonsense.
No one really knows evolution …..who is the target? How was man created, the animal, the microbe, the earth, the universe, the galaxies? Is the creator God or maybe nature? Maybe it's the same thing, they are an adjective and who invented the adjectives... man in short, the religious say God, the scientists say nature... and I say man invented the adjectives and the questions but he will never really reach the answers
Uncle,
May I know what exactly is your academic background (in which field)? And how did he give you tools for empirical research methods?
Waste of time, it's a shame that I even started with you enlightened and noble people like you.
Uncle:
You just keep going. Insults me and gives titles to questions.
You just have nothing to answer.
None of the questions are demagogic.
On the other hand, all the "answers" you tried to give before you freaked out were demagogic, but I - instead of giving them titles, simply exposed their nakedness - your nakedness.
You give me psychological analysis in every one of your comments.
You are asking rhetorically/stating that I don't want to discuss the matter.
It is not different from the rest of your words in that it has nothing to do with reality, but your evasion of an answer throughout shows that, as I said - you are the one who does not want/is unable to discuss the matter.
Uncle,
One of the signs of false, meaningless, pseudo-scientific theories is stepping in place for many years.
Successful and fruitful theories (even if not completely accurate, advance non-stop and bring new discoveries, interesting perspectives and of course confirmations of their correctness.
The practice of Kabbalah is ancient, and I have not heard of a single achievement, of a discovery in any field, of a single correct prediction that was not made in retrospect, during these many years - and please correct me if I am wrong.
The same goes for dealing with psychology, telekinesis, aliens, and more.
For comparison, consider the astonishing rate of progress of science in almost every field imaginable.
Look at the vast knowledge today, compared to the knowledge only 200 years ago, in every scientific field.
I therefore see the practice of Kabbalah and the Secret Doctrine, and many other similar ones, as a horrendous waste of time.
So is numerology, astrology, tarot and much more.
I will surely start to be interested and devote my precious time to each of these fields, if only I notice signs of any achievements.
I enjoy enriching my spiritual world by reading different types of literature,
I enjoy hearing fantastic and fascinating stories, but I don't mix it with my scientific world view, and I don't get confused between it and reality.
Michael,
As our friends in America say - What Ever!
All the arguments you supposedly pull out of your sleeve are a night of cheap demagoguery whose entire purpose is to disperse the discussion from being a factual discussion to a scattered and pointless discussion.
You say that a debate is based on the truth, a debate is first of all based on mutual respect and tolerance - which yours is not at all.
I attacked you personally and did not even try to answer any of your arguments, because as I said before, you are a demagogue who pulls out all kinds of stupid arguments like the Jordan lice and fleas - what is the connection anyway? Are you pulling out all the guns you have from some lecture you heard from some Israelite?
Your "reasons" that you pulled out all at once have one goal - to put me on the defensive and watch in order to get me out of my concentration and then you can claim that you "beat" me in an argument and you are a man, a man who is of course completely and unquestionably right in everything, this is why I did not answer you matter-of-factly about "Your reasons".
Having an argument with you is like making peace with Syria, they claim that they want peace with us and at the same time they are sending all the forces of evil that they can muster (no need to elaborate right?)
You don't really want to discuss business, do you? You just want to be the winner in the end, to feel right, and it doesn't matter what you ran over and destroyed along the way.
My condolences, you are a miserable person.
By the way, David - not that I didn't try to argue with you.
My previous response - even if I did not warrant your attention - was a collection of reasons that contradicted your claims.
The main reason why I see no point in continuing the argument with you is that you have never argued. From the moment it became clear to you that the lie you are trying to instill in us was exposed, you went on a personal attack and did not raise a single argument.
Noam,
Phew, what a refreshing change to read your response, which is so different from Michael R. (formerly Michael)!
You ask excellent and correct questions, I also asked the same questions.
Not all of them have immediate answers, most of them have very complex answers.
Some of the questions you ask are questions to which the answer is a whole world, they require investigation, study and deepening. I can't give you an abbreviated answer to them, I would thus sin against the truth and towards you.
If you are really interested in learning and hearing please leave your email here, or suggest another way to contact us directly and indirectly like here, and from there we will see how we proceed.
I want to emphasize that I am not an admissions teacher or a spiritual teacher or a convert (God forbid), I am a simple Jew and a student just like you. I might be able to give you an initial direction, consult my teacher, maybe connect you with him, and from there you will continue on your personal path which you must find yourself.
Best regards,
Uncle
Uncle:
I have no interest in arguing with you either, so everything is fine.
In my opinion, it is also not possible to argue with you because an argument is based on telling the truth.
Mr. Michael R. (formerly Michael),
No one is oily as a commentator, I only wrote my opinion and my belief here, would you like it? You will receive! wouldn't you like to? also good!
You are not able to get out even for a moment from the bubbling poison and the venom that drips from your mouth, and to maintain an open mind and tolerance towards the opinions and beliefs of others, and in order to cover up an emotional scar which you have probably been carrying for a long time (this is the only logical explanation that comes to my mind for the much violence that you display here in all your comments), you are raping and hurting anyone who dares to think differently than you.
Is it possible that you perhaps think that by forcing the sewage coming out of your mouth on others you will prove that your opinion is indeed correct?
I don't know you (thank God) but I wouldn't be surprised Mr. Michael R. (formerly Michael), if you were a yeshiva student in some kind of boarding school as a child, who suffered abuse and this is the true root of your deep and dark aversion to everything that represents Judaism?
Or are you not ours at all and your whole mission here is to sow evil among the readers here?
In conclusion, Mr. Michael R. (formerly Michael), I have no further interest in adding and arguing with you, the argument with you is fundamentally pointless, I simply regret the effort. Let me repeat to you: science is not a box of corn, but you, sir, are a complete idiot, narrow-minded and have a dark and predatory way of thinking and expression, and all in the name of science.
Uncle
Uncle:
to tell you that you are rambling?
You know that!
Don't you want the simple? Why? Just because the abstract is nonsense and lies? By what authority do you define Euphrates and Tigris in such a strange way? Does the Jordan also have the same meaning? If so - why isn't it created from the same source? If not - why not?
Anyway - what's your name to interpret? What God was such an idiot who didn't know how to express himself properly so that he would be understood?
And if you are already crossing over into the world of interpretation - are you claiming that I must accept the interpretation of sages?
Should I understand that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold?
Should I accept their claim that the trachea of the cow is divided into three parts, one of which reaches the liver?
And actually - why are you avoiding the rabbit and the rabbit thing? It is very convenient to "not be interested" in things that contradict your blind faith.
Your words about science are nonsense from beginning to end.
Science is not an axiom - that is clear.
Come and let me tell you: science is not a box of corn either.
What does this have to do with us? Why did you choose to point out the fact that science is not an axiom?
Science is science. It outlines a path for self-discovery of the truth about the laws of nature. This way - as you will understand if you delve into it - is nothing but intellectual honesty.
That's why science is also not a blanket that is all blue. This stems in a more detailed way from the fact that we are not tallit at all.
Judaism does not encourage the search for truth.
Is it allowed in Judaism to try to check if there is a God?
Is it allowed to try and check if there is more than one?
All you prove in relation to Judaism is that it is permissible to lie in its name.
Uncle,
I fail to see the similarity you claim between science and the investigation of the secret world:
Science requires experiments, findings and proofs - i.e. verifying theories with reality, and giving absolute priority to reality
Is there a requirement for findings in the investigation of the secret and acceptance? for evidence? For a confrontation with reality?
You mentioned that there are many charlatans in the area of receiving and investigating the secret. How do you know the difference between a charlatan and a real and reliable secret investigator?
What are your criteria for this distinction?
David, I'm willing to hear about anything, including demons and spirits, a spiritual world in the tenth dimension, Kabbalah, witches, and more, but to believe it, I ask for proof, not mumbo jumbo.
And if it is impossible to prove this, not even in principle, then I treat the above as interesting stories and nothing else.
Noam,
Everything you wrote here, now turn in the opposite direction, and ask the same questions about yourself!
Lest you understand that I am against science, I believe in science as I believe in the Torah - there is no contradiction between them! ! !
And again you are caught simplifying, I did not claim that the days of creation were ages every day! A day is a symbol of a certain cycle, try to ask and characterize this cycle and check what questions it brings up in you subjectively and from there you will start to investigate what the contexts are, you will start to collect information and learn and suddenly you will discover more contexts and so with a lot of work (not reading an article or a talkback) you will start to get a picture yours and will become clearer and clearer.
Do not confuse the method with those who claim to apply it, just as you demanded regarding the scientific method and the scientists!
The investigation in the secret world is just like the investigation in the world of science, in both fields you step into the unknown.
The secret world is not mumbo jumbo and all kinds of superstitions, it is a science for everything, and not everyone who declared himself acceptable is really so, for the most part these announcements come to generate handsome financial profits. There are a lot of lies here, don't confuse them with the method! The method is not to blame just like the scientific method!
The scientific method deals with the physical while the Kabbalistic method deals with the metaphysical! And the Torah is one big Kabbalah book!
Are you ready to hear that there is a spiritual world that you have never perceived with your senses? Will raising such a hypothesis on your lips necessarily undermine your entire worldview? I claim that with the right intention it will only add to you and enrich your inner world like it did to me.
I'm really no different than you in my beliefs in science and empirics. I am also an academic and quite well versed in empirical research methods.
Uncle
Uncle,
Regarding the six days of creation that lasted for eons - the Lubavitcher Rebbe rejected this explanation completely, because it empties the Shabbat of its content (a Shabbat that lasted for eons???)
Regarding the contradictions - see, those who believe that everything written in the Torah is precisely correct, is condemned to a Sisyphean work of endless twists and turns, because every time science advances, it forces the religious scholars to re-read the Torah and strain their brains to find a new peppered explanation, so that the believers do not arise and start To doubt, and maybe even to repent Rahmana Litzlan..
It seems to me that this is a tedious and unconstructive occupation, and if it weren't for this incessant need, perhaps more ultra-Orthodox youth would be able to free up their time and find time to serve in the army and even work for a living.
I certainly agree with you that science is not all rosy, but the scientific method, unlike the scientists, guarantees that even theormics and rounding corners will not last long in the field of science.
Such an objective mechanism exists only in science, not in the various religions, and not in other scientific pseudos, superstitions and the like.
Regarding the need in Judaism to ask questions and doubt - come on, you don't distinguish between religious doubt and scientific doubt???
The religious confusion is equivalent to that one who is in a dark cave all his life, and is not willing to hear that there is a world outside the cave. He is ready to ask questions only about what is happening in the area of the cave, and other questions must not be raised on the lips. He simply believes that there is no world outside his comfortable cave, and no fact will confuse him.
Friends,
Science is not an axiom either, a theory is also true until another comes along that fits reality better.
Scientists are also human beings and there are no shortage of cases where scientists have rounded corners regarding the findings of their research in order not to lose funding or for internal academic political reasons or from all kinds of foreign interests.
Science is not a blanket that is all blue, let's not be fooled!!!
Even in Judaism you constantly have to ask questions and doubt, investigate and dig just like in science. Both here and here you can twist and change everything from the ground up.
In the name of freedom of thought and creativity, some of the members here adopt a rather Bolshevik style of disqualifying the other and laughing at him.
I believe that we are all here in favor of the search for truth and superiority, let's not be "small".
Michael,
You are again caught simplifying when I say and repeat that these are symbolic descriptions for much more metaphysical and abstract things.
Euphrates and Tigris are rivers - ask what water symbolizes, a flow, a single-source river that splits and try to relate it to the world of concepts of the theory of the conscious mind and human consciousness.
Six days - perhaps a day symbolizes some kind of cycle/period (such a period can also be entire ages) and there were six such cycles until what we know today was created?
About rabbit and hare I don't really know, I was never interested in that point.
I ask you to lower the flames and not dismiss and state that what you don't believe in is necessarily lies, let's maintain a culture of debate or not debate at all. Respect me and I will respect you.
If you have a prior emotional charge against religious people of any kind, please try to put it aside and understand Judaism and its morality objectively and without an emotional filter.
Uncle
Uncle:
No contradiction?
Euphrates and Tigris come from the same source?
The rabbit and the rabbit rummage?
Was the world created in six days?
What is the connection between these lies and spirituality?
The connection is of course in the attempt to sell us an immoral system of laws while creating a false representation as if this system was given to us by the Creator of the world and therefore we must conquer our sense of morality and kill Shabbat violators.
Noam Shalom,
The many contradictions are precisely for the reason (and I'm talking about the Torah! Not the whole Bible!!!) that the Torah is mainly intended to be a spiritual guide and not a history book or a scientific guide. The symbolism used in the Torah is what confuses most people who read and understand things as they are.
In order to truly understand the Torah, you need to enter the secret world - Kabbalah. Only when you read there will you understand what a whole universe of knowledge and awareness you are missing.
I do not repent and do not return to repentance, I am not even religious, but I do believe in God and try to learn and expand my knowledge about Judaism and its origins, including its secret teachings (I study this with sane people who understand science and the affairs of this world and progress just like all the friends who write here) .
I do believe in evolution, and you will be surprised, but it does not contradict creation according to the Torah! If you read in Kabbalah you will understand that the creation story in general talks about the formation of levels of awareness and human consciousness, about the soul, the soul and other completely metaphysical levels and layers!
Let's say you lived your whole life in a completely dark cave and were not exposed to any extra light. One day I come outside the cave and tell you about a whole world out there, different colors and the like. How am I supposed to explain to you what the green color of the trees is, or the blue color of the sea, or the light blue of the sky, the red of the anemone, etc...
Any explanation of mine will have to be one that makes use of your world of knowledge, not mine, because if I talk to you in my terms you won't understand at all what I'm talking about, but if I explain to you symbolically using your terms, then I will also guide you (and this is the critical point here) In order for you to understand things correctly and not distort it (the chance that things will be distorted is very high, because you have no point of reference - it is a body of knowledge completely external to you).
This is exactly what is happening with the Torah and spirituality in Judaism, all kinds of clowns think they are great thinkers (see for example - http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3694938,00.html - Why did Satan really dance) and then they distort everything in a completely opposite way to the Torah's intention.
In conclusion - in the Torah everything has a deep and hidden layer, which needs to be dug up by distilling it and bringing it out. You can call it clever fumbling and confusion - I claim it's a question of faith! You can not believe and I will never be able to prove to you that God exists and you will never be able to prove to me that God does not exist!
Regarding contradictions with morality - you have to deal with each case individually, I can't really relate to your overall claim. It's just important not to involve different political views and worldviews here, you need to first understand what the Torah meant and then decide if it suits you or not!
Best regards,
Uncle
Uncle,
In everything related to the description of nature and its understanding, one has to make a great effort not to notice the many contradictions between what is written in the Bible and science.
They can be excused with a thousand philosophies and sophistry, but it seems to me that it is much simpler to adopt the approach that says that whoever wrote the Bible simply did not know many things that are known today.
The other virtues you mentioned, of course they do not conflict with science (although some of them conflict with morality and some with common sense...).
There is no contradiction between the Torah and science!
The Torah is neither a history book nor a science book! She deals with spirituality (but not only!)!
The Torah is a spiritual guide to life.
The story of Genesis is mostly symbolism and allusions to metaphysical things that simply cannot be described by the physical but by using symbols and images.
It is true that the Torah also includes other layers - mental, psychology, diplomacy, management, governance, healing and other everyday things, but it is primarily a spiritual guide!
Whoever turns it into a history/science book is wrong and misleading.
Menachem Ben is wrong in going to one extreme, and the scientists are wrong in going to the opposite extreme - there is no contradiction between the two.
Happy and kosher Passover
Uncle
Uncle,
Adolf Hitler took the theory of evolution and twisted it to his needs. In theory, there are no superior or inferior races - there are only those that are better adapted to their environment, and natural selection (and not artificial selection by humans) selects them over millions of years.
Even if Hitler understood the theory of evolution and used it correctly, it would not mean that we cannot use it ourselves for research in laboratories and to understand the world. To the same extent, it can be argued that since Iran uses Newton's laws to threaten us with missiles, we should not use Newton's laws ourselves to move trains.
Regarding Dr. Michael Denton and his claims, please quote the whole story. Although in his first book he did oppose the idea of evolution, in his subsequent books he already accepted evolution as a matter of course.
Either way, his arguments are nonsense. There is a wide variety of fossils that represent intermediate vertebrae between the organisms of today and those of the past. These include fossil series showing the evolution of the horse from a dog-like creature, the evolution of the whale from a four-legged land mammal, and even the evolution of man from an ape-like creature. If you heard otherwise (and I'm going to assume that you read/heard otherwise on sites like Hidbrot, which aim at conversion and do not resort to lies and half-truths for that purpose), I suggest that you re-examine the claim on more reliable sites.
For a quick read that may clarify some of the claims you raised:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/creationist.html
good week,
Roy.
"Accidental" changes in DNA - this is not proof!
Today, in the light of modern genetics, which knows that the genetic code has dominant and recessive traits and recessive traits can become dominant under certain conditions, these changes do not raise any questions since all the traits were pre-created and pre-implanted and they are revealed and change depending on the circumstances...
What's more, the theory of evolution entails a great danger to humanity, since the full name of Darwin's book is: "The Origin of Species - Through Natural Selection or the Survival of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life".
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party purged their views on the superiority of the Aryan race from the theory of evolution, the superior race [the Nazis] - survive, while the inferior race [the Jews] - are doomed to annihilation.
I don't understand how people can support a theory that directly caused the death of a third of our people, what's more, it is based on completely unfounded hypotheses, since all its foundations are built on the claim of "the bones of the bones", that is, fossils of vertebrae that link one species to another must be found, and he has already written Dr. Michael Denton, a researcher in the field of molecular biology from the University of Otago, New Zealand: "The complete absence, in fact, of ancient wine forms in the fossil finds is now recognized by a large part of paleontologists as one of the most striking characteristics."
So why do people still fight for a speculative theory that has no scientific basis and leads to a holocaust disaster? Well, in my opinion, humans fight for its survival because it serves as a tool for them to free themselves from moral responsibility for their actions, because the acknowledgment that there is a G-d who created everything, and He is the moral authority - it is binding, and people simply want to shake it off!!
All the best!!
Dawn,
Are you surprised by the "contempt" we heap on people of different faiths? Whether it is "New-Age" (=New-Shit) or a religion that tries to explain phenomena according to their belief system?
"When you cite professors and female doctorates, there is no difference between a religious person quoting his rabbi. "
It just shows how unable, and more than that - unwilling, to understand the scientific method and how it differs from all other "methods". The scientific method advocates skepticism, constant skepticism of the theories that people bring, including scientists. This very ability to doubt has given us a real glimpse into how the universe works and according to what laws. We doubt every scientific theory that is expressed, we criticize it, until those who brought the theory and those who will come after them prove beyond any doubt that their theory explains all the phenomena it came to explain and even predicts others that can be discovered. This even encourages them to reach new insights.
I personally came to such situations when in the academy people criticized me and the theories I came up with to explain phenomena. And I learned not to get upset by it, on the contrary, I saw it as an opportunity to further understand what was really happening. I thank the people who pointed out holes in my theories. Not only because it gave me more places to cover them and find explanations why my theories are correct, but also to find mistakes in the theory.
You don't understand that the very constant doubting is what causes the fact that almost all the "laws of physics" we know today are still a theory, including the Newtonian theory of gravity. We always encourage people to keep asking themselves if the theory can be improved, or even taken in a different direction. The situation is exactly the opposite of your claim that the scientific method advocates "rigid rules", although the little rigidity that exists in it is expressed in the high standards it asks for theories to be accepted - which makes it an even more successful method.
I for example, not that I can call myself a scientist, maybe (although I always aspire to it) I always doubt and question every article and scientific information that is expressed. Looking for holes and how the presented theory is able to deal with them.
The reason you are so contemptuous and one might even say afraid of the scientific method is because your opinions do not meet the criteria and tests that the method brings. Compared to the scientific method, you don't always question the opinions and theories you believe in. Against this, you blame the scientific method for the things that you yourself and all pseudo-scientific beliefs of all kinds are guilty of all the time - the inability to doubt and ask difficult questions. And I'm not just talking about criticizing others, but also your theories and those you believe in.
What a funny evolution denier, it seems like he missed some courses... to define bacteria as "non-diploid" creatures is quite puzzling, I guess you meant that they don't reproduce by sexual reproduction...?
As for fossils, you don't know what you're talking about. The fossilized animals that are supposed to represent the ancestors of the whale, were not attached to it just like that because someone felt like it, and to tell the truth, the paleontologists who uncovered these fossils at the beginning, did not at all suspect that it was one of the ancestors of the whale. It was later noticed that his ears were built like the ears of modern whales, which cannot be found in any other animal alive today!
That is, one of the possibilities - either God or Wataber, created all modern cetaceans (dolphins, whales, etc.) with an ear structure unique to them, in addition to some strange wolf- and otter-like creatures that lived tens of millions of years ago, with the same ear (which cannot be found in terrestrial animals) others, then or today), or that these creatures were the ancestors of the whales that gradually moved to live in the water, and happened to have unique anatomical features that have been preserved in modern whales. PICK YOUR CHOICE.
Similar things can be said about other fossils, modern bees share many anatomical characteristics with fossils of extinct animals, which indicates a genealogical relationship. (Have you ever seen a chicken skeleton? It looks more like a dinosaur than any other creature alive today.)
And that's without even mentioning the genetic evidence... there is a different genetic kinship between species, and from a quantitative point of view it is possible to estimate how long ago two organisms separated from each other and shared a common ancestor. When you cross-reference this evidence with morphology, and the fossil record, you get a remarkably well-matched assemblage that would not be possible if the animals were created all at once randomly and unrelated to each other.
That is, the age obtained from a calculation of comparing the genomes of two species is the same as the age indicated by the fossils of the presumed ancestors of those species.
As for not finding enough fossils, don't you know that fossilization is a very rare process? It is not very likely that you will find a large and continuous series of development of an organism over time. But wonder and wonder, several series of such fossils were indeed found, for example horses, or humans, or those whales. what do you expect Find fossils of the same species at intervals of a hundred years for an evolution time of several millions?
One last thing, when you wrote "Creationism also claims that there were worlds before ours and this was written before Darwin" you completely exposed yourself. I don't remember it being a classic creationist argument, and it certainly isn't written about in the New or Old Testament... but I know where it came from, you're one of the delusional ones who bought the Kabbalistic fairy tales. So transparent man. You must be a miserable convert.
I wonder how you prove the matter of the "worlds", the earth has always been the same "world", where did the other worlds come from...??
the egg or the chicken
You all lock in a small number of possibilities for the origin of life - for example there is a possibility
that the egg preceded the chicken - the genetic code - DNA - was built by high-level technology
From your computer - Vanessa is busy these days looking for this way of life that doesn't have to be according to the scientific or biblical model.
Dawn:
As usual - your words are meaningless.
Luckily for you there are enough people who are willing to face reality and they built the country for you.
All you are asked is to stop interrupting.
To 54
A. Religion is a Soviet belief.
B. This science is mathematically proven.
C. Meanwhile, mathematics is constant and consistent without contradictions, so it is almost certain that the axioms and everything that follows from them is an objective and not a subjective truth.
I read the responses of the various "scientists" and I discover a lot of arrogance and conceit.
To the extent of slanders and humiliations arising from a false sense of security of power.
When you cite professors and female doctorates, there is no difference between a religious person quoting his rabbi.
The theory of "evolution" strengthens the entire set of beliefs of this type of people, and to reject it means to reject all the years of "education" they received and of course themselves.
In fact, there is no doubt that life on Earth is constantly evolving, there is also no doubt that the building blocks that make us up also make up the seaweed.
Dealing with fossils is dealing with "voodoo". It is possible to speculate who the parents of that fossil were, but a solid truth can never be built from this.
The same goes for dealing with layers like this.
No matter how complex models are, if one variable is wrong, they will produce completely different results.
Go build a country...
Menachem Ben is a wretched and poor man who is constantly busy insulting people, looking for someone to fight with, living in his delusions and spewing provocative gibberish. He is stuck in some early developmental stage.
I'm betting on a severe personality disorder.
I don't watch Big Brother, but if Menachem Ben really said the things there, someone should ask him if he is willing to receive a blood transfusion from a person who is sick with a disease that he doesn't think exists.
This is how you will solve Menachem Ben's problem once and for all (after the disease breaks out, like it does, which may take some time)
Menachem Ben lacks self-awareness. He is an ignorant person and with the country and it is not at all clear how he became a literary critic in any newspapers. Apparently, in order to be a book reviewer, you don't have to be an Eshkolot person as it was required to be thirty years ago.
Menachem Ben really does not meet the standard of anything. He has old-fashioned opinions that are disconnected from reality, he does not bother to stand on issues until they are finished before he releases into the air his baseless speculations and thus infects the minds of mankind with superstitions.
The problem with Menachem Ben's words also in "The Big Brother" is that he is on the verge of inciting when he talks about various issues such as the issue of AIDS which he claims is a disease that does not exist de facto.
The honorable Menachem states this and leaves no room for discussion, as someone who knows everything, since he read one article by a marginal and esoteric researcher, and does not know in depth at all what it is about and what has been discovered since the 80s about the disease. This is just an example of the problems of thinking of people, who hold fast to their opinions before getting down to the root of things and thereby harming the lives of many such as for example members of the families of AIDS carriers, AIDS patients themselves and more
And about the denial of evolution - oh well. This is Menachem Ben. Sometimes it seems to me that he is more of a provocateur than an educated person.
Does he have a mind at the top? It is not clear ! Which is true. He gets votes in Big Brother, even if it means harming entire populations, in order to get a few more lousy rating points for him.
(Reitnig is beautiful, but ancient opinions and a face that will disappear from consciousness like all the celebrities in Grosh, straight into the abyss of femininity 15 minutes of fame after the end of the program)
Just another chance to win. Dear sir if you haven't read the book then why are you writing about it. It is not appropriate to read before writing on the subject, or perhaps the goal is to quarrel and clash with a literary critic, who can be dismissed as not being a scientist.
What's new,
I stopped responding to Ermac a long time ago. In the end, all the knowledge already exists and look for those who want to learn. Ermac chooses not to learn, or he actively lies and distorts facts. I see no point in arguing with him, but only to link to previous debates in which the creationists' claims were refuted one by one, and I have already done so.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
You guys are really funny, you know? Strengthening each other with false mantras that have no scientific or logical basis.
To Michael - "he scoffs at his private fantasy as if computers are evolving from each other and deliberately ignores the fact that he has never seen a computer give birth to a computer" - but this is exactly your fantasy - that complex creatures slowly turn into other complex creatures by accumulating changes. Can a car become to plane gradually by accumulating random mutations? yes or no?
Can you point out a difference between a replicating car (let's say it existed in reality) that gradually changes into an airplane, and a replicating creature that gradually turns into another replicating creature? Would you believe that even without evidence of it? Who is delusional here?
To Roy - "Many predictions of the theory of evolution have already been made, including those of Darwin himself in the original version of the theory. He predicted that fossils would be found - and they were." Not only were most of the fossils not found, but there are also contradictions in them and in their description. What's more, they always appear in their entirety without gradation. Not to mention, that an internal anatomical gradation cannot be diagnosed in fossils.
Just the other day they found a fossil of a snake with legs. What story does this remind you of?
"He said that for the theory to be valid, the Earth should be hundreds of millions of years old (something that was unknown in his time), and the Earth was indeed discovered to be ~5 billion years old." Written before Darwin. So?
And what about scientists who claim that it may not be so? And what about contradictions in dates? Everything is speculation upon speculation.
"He said there should be a mechanism that would allow change - and they discovered the DNA and the mutations." - Mutations cannot create new genes that are dependent on other genes. This was never suggested or observed.
"According to evolution, the whale was initially a mammal walking on four legs. The prediction: Fossils of transitional phases of the whale were found. And indeed we found it." - In imagination we found perhaps. Perhaps a chameleon is a relative of the tree? They are terribly similar. Perhaps they evolved from each other?
"When poison is sprinkled in the fields, predict that insects will undergo evolution and natural selection, and a new species will emerge that will be immune to the poison. And indeed it emerged (as reported in the Hidan several months ago)." - There is no problem with accepting natural selection since it only selects but does not create. There is a problem with accepting the formation of complex systems. There is no evidence for this.
"Even in laboratories these days scientists make predictions every day according to evolution. Whenever I select bacteria against antibiotics, I am aware that some develop some sort of immunity. "- Not true. This is only a point mutation and not the creation of a new multi-gene system. And we are also dealing with creatures that are not diploid, so the mutation takes over quickly. Which is not true for diploid creatures like us. In fact, even if an amazing mutation of 5 percent survival appears in humans, it is Disappear as if it were not there.
"All these are just a small part of the many predictions made according to the theory of evolution and its adaptation. What are the predictions that were made according to creationism?" - see above. What's more, a prediction is not a measure of the correctness of a theory, and also for creationism there are predictions that I have already made in the past.
Nice week…..
Michael and Roy
It's a shame to waste time on ermac
Let him continue spouting his nonsense
If it is his will.
Ermac
You failed and there is no more retest
Of course you can continue spouting your nonsense
No sane person will take them seriously
By the way, don't forget to say hello to SUPERMAN (your god)
Hell,
Many predictions of the theory of evolution have already been made, including those of Darwin himself in the original version of the theory. He predicted that fossils would be found - and they were.
He said that for the theory to be valid, the Earth should be hundreds of millions of years old (something that was not known in his time), and the Earth was indeed found to be ~5 billion years old.
He said that there should be a mechanism that would allow change - and they discovered the DNA and the mutations.
According to evolution, the whale was initially a mammal walking on four legs. The prediction: Fossils of transitional phases of the whale were found. And indeed we found.
When poison is sprayed in the fields, predict that insects will undergo evolution and natural selection, and a new species will emerge that will be immune to the poison. And it did pop up (as reported in 'Hidan' a few months ago).
Even in laboratories these days scientists make predictions every day according to evolution. Whenever I select bacteria against antibiotics, I am aware that some develop some sort of immunity.
All these are just a small part of the many predictions made according to the theory of evolution and its adaptation. What are the predictions made according to creationism?
What's new,
Note that Ermac got confused here. Apparently he was tired, and betrayed his method. He did not answer your argument at all (all materials on Earth are affected by gravity), but simply copy-pasted his other claim (evolution does not exist because Pentium processors can reproduce), without wrapping it in demagoguery.
It's fascinating how much nonsense can be introduced in metaphors that are not related to the topic at all.
What's new:
Do you see what's going on here?
He's counting on people not checking what he's written in the past to call you delusional.
He is just a liar.
It's a shame to argue with him.
He brings all kinds of arguments from the Torah and religion to contradict scientific arguments and then claims that he never said that the Torah is a scientific book.
Of course, his above arguments were refuted by me, but that does not change the fact that he raised them.
By the way - the willingness to lie to "prove" your words is another characteristic of the religion where belief is more important than anything, including the truth.
He scoffs at his private fantasy of computers evolving from each other and deliberately ignores the fact that he has never seen a computer give birth to a computer. Although it is clear that in the more general sense of the word, computers are also subject to an evolutionary process just like any other system, but there is nothing to delve into this because it will only confuse him even more.
What's new that's getting old?
"It seems to me that you are ignorant and lack knowledge in physics (your level is less than middle school, maybe you are a child at least from your responses)
All materials on the surface of the earth and in the air are affected by the gravitational force of the earth, including airplanes, birds, kites. If I dig deeper, I will find more and more old processors. Can I conclude from the fact that they evolved from each other? * Your imaginary fossils. Do you think a bird evolved from a bee that evolved from a fly that evolved from a mosquito? After all, they can be arranged from simple to complex and they have common characteristics (size+wings+eyes, etc.). So why not claim that they were created from each other? Simply because you don't feel like it.
"You yourself decided that the Torah is a scientific book because otherwise you have no reason to contradict evolution" - when did I say that the Torah is a scientific book? You are severely delusional.
” to a watchmaker who builds a watch
The watch was built according to known scientific laws
Now you say the opposite that creation was done in a supernatural way.
You are contradicting yourself" - I am not contradicting myself. Watches are created by intelligent creators, period. The question of how the watch was created - in a material or spiritual way, cannot cancel the intelligence required to create a watch.
To Hella:
Speak. Speak for yourself.
There are things that are not clear to you while they are completely clear to others.
For example evolution.
Evolution is first of all a completely understandable mathematical phenomenon based on probability theory and takes place in many environments of which the animal world is only one.
Basically - why bother and rewrite everything - the first response I gave here - response number 8 - explains everything.
You can even find there prophecies that have come true (yes, despite what you said in your response!)
A basic feature of a theory that is said to be scientific is the ability to predict. Gravitation is a scientific theory and it is clear to every person what will happen to him if he jumps from a high tower without a parachute.
Evolution does not predict anything, it cannot predict - it looks back, it is scientific as history is science. There is no difference between the history of human society and evolution. It is an attempt to explain something that is not clear to any of us - not to the pastors in the churches, not to the flowers of the priesthood in the faculties of biology
And you can also say - wow - they don't know how to explain
Ermac
"- The logical fallacy is that the survival advantage is not a design advantage. They are not the same.
It's as I tell you there, the nature of an inanimate object with weight is to fall down due to the force of gravity - so anything that is a material with weight will fall down. And of course this is not true - an airplane, a bird, a kite, for example, are a material with weight that defies the laws of gravity."
It seems to me that you are ignorant and lack knowledge in physics (your level is less than middle school, maybe you are a child at least from your responses)
All materials on the surface of the earth and in the air are affected by the earth's gravity, including airplanes, birds, kites.!!!
Regarding the first line of your quote, this is not a logical proof, it is nonsense
It is like saying that the mathematical expression a^2+b^2 = c^2 proves that there is no God.
"Regarding 2 - questions concerning supernatural laws, which supposedly do not exist today, cannot be used against scientific arguments concerning laws that do exist today = again a logical fallacy."
You yourself decided that the Torah is a scientific book because otherwise you have no reason to contradict evolution. You compare your God to a watchmaker who builds a clock.
The watch was built according to known scientific laws
Now you say the opposite that creation was done in a supernatural way.
You contradict yourself
Imagine that I would say that the moon is yellow cheese and I would bring you proofs that there were no flights to the moon and that everything is a conspiracy.
In conclusion
ermac Not only did you fail to prove anything, it turned out that you are also ignorant and your knowledge of physics tends to zero
So don't work with your eyes on the readers.
"Prove that I have a logical fallacy.
2. Explain in a logical way the contradictions I found in the creation of the world"-
1- The logical fallacy is that the survival advantage is not a design advantage. They are not the same.
It's as I tell you there, the nature of an inanimate object with weight is to fall down due to the force of gravity - so anything that is a material with weight will fall down. This is of course not true - an airplane, a bird, a kite, for example, are a material with weight that defies the laws of gravity.
Regarding 2-questions concerning supernatural laws, which supposedly do not exist today, cannot be used against scientific arguments concerning laws that do exist today = again a logical fallacy.
Ermac
You didn't answer my questions, you just made statements.
I understand that you have no answers and you agree with me that God in the book of Genesis is SUPERMAN and therefore he could not be the creator of the world.
And so it seems to me that you support the theory of evolution.
For Oran and what's new:
Aerox does not argue.
He lectures the contents of the tape that replaced his mind without listening or responding to any argument.
We have already dealt with his religious claims in the past, but he simply prefers to forget.
The same goes for his illogical claims and the same goes for his probabilistic pretensions.
Everything has already appeared in this discussion
But since Irowax's goal is exhaustion, then the fact that he received answers, the fact that all his claims were refuted, the fact that he did not answer any of the questions that were asked - all of this does not affect his ability to go back and play the tape.
I gave him the name Airwax precisely because of this - his ears are closed to all logic.
Ermac
"Why is it new - then you raised your hands from evolution? Does the proof of this or that religion prove this or that creator? Here too you have a logical fallacy."
1. Prove that I have a logical fallacy.
2. Explain logically the contradictions I found in the creation of the world.
For Oren and what is new - "for example the following logical pattern:" A clock needs a watchmaker" therefore "a person needs a planner".
This is a logical jump at a level that every long jump competitor would like to achieve"-
is that so?
The logical fallacy is yours - you claim that because of the ability to accumulate mutations we will have complex systems. In other words, according to you - the survival advantage = a design advantage. But it is clear that this is a logical fallacy. Natural selection pushes towards the survival advantage and not the design. It does not direct such and such parts towards their common purpose, like a watch
Why is it new - then you raised your hands from evolution? Does the proof of this or that religion prove this or that creator? Here too you have a logical fallacy.
ermac's weakness is the god's own essence and is therefore an instigator
You are debating the theory of evolution and you are defending yourself
It is clear that no theory is perfect (otherwise it would be Torah).
Sometimes he is wrong but sometimes there is not enough knowledge to answer him.
Because in theory not everything is known and there will be more discoveries in the future.
If you were to focus on the Torah (where he avoids proof) you would see according to
The descriptions are there that God Maximum is SUPERMAN who has done great things but also has many weaknesses.
I will summarize the weaknesses:
1. The creation of the world in Genesis is so confused and illogical
For example, on the first day he created the day and the night, but on the fourth day he created the lights, they should differentiate between the day and the night
On the third day he created the field and the rest of the plants (before the lights, that is, before the creation of the sun and moon).
2. In chapter XNUMX a verse like this is written "And God said let us make man in our image after our likeness". What do you mean we did he didn't do it alone?
In our image as our image? That is, God looks like one of us, he has a figure.
I find it interesting to focus with him on the essence of the Creator of the world according to the Book of Genesis, which he apparently believes in instead of him evading towards the theory of evolution.
The principle to which field the intelligent planning belongs is indeed important, because one must pay attention to whether the discussion is a discussion of faith or facts.
What bothers me more is that creationists present themselves as scientists, their theory can replace evolution and must be taught in schools.
And what is even more disturbing is the work that creationists see themselves as scientists. A real scientist would realize his mistake (although it can be a long process due to the human ego) in the light of field work.
For example, the following logic: "A clock needs a watchmaker" therefore "a person needs a planner".
This is a logical leap at a level that any long jump competitor would like to achieve.
This mike is a doozy which is a pleasure.
Response 293 summarizes the progression of the discussion up to it in a good way.
To understand the background to this response, you should also read responses 182, 198, 221, 223, 231, 271, 281, 289
To Roy-Tov you gave the above link. I am also one of the participants there. And "Mike" answered there very nicely.. I recommend following. To Oren-"Also he asked the question who created the planners?"
Because they are too intelligent to plan all the things we see, right?
And this is also what the creationists avoid answering.... Because there is simply no answer
And if there is an answer, then it is not related to science but to another field" - it does not matter. If the Creator himself is not made of matter, then the claim is not valid for him. What's more, we do not know the laws that have been applied to him. The fact that a watch requires a watchmaker is as strong and clear as the sun.
The debate (the circular one should add) on this subject made me look for some more information on the Internet
One saying caught my eye that I definitely think is true, and it's from Dawkins - the author of The Selfish Garden, a wonderful book that I highly recommend, especially to you Ermac (which I can't find the link to But also on this site
There is something to be said about it)
He said, of course, that this theory is complete nonsense and that the creationists are only looking for a debate, to put the issue on the agenda and hopefully (or cunning) also succeed in turning their claim into an existing fact and then say: "If evolution is taught in school, let them also teach intelligent planning!" Which is doing well in America.
He also asked the question who created the planners?
Because they are too intelligent to plan all the things we see, right?
And this is also what the creationists avoid answering.... Because there is simply no answer
And if there is an answer then it is not related to science but to another field.
One of the most interesting things about the debates between creationists and scientists is that the creationists' arguments never change. The answers that scientists can give to any argument are many, but creationists rely on the fact that every time a new discussion starts, they can throw out many more false and empty statements than scientists can answer even in a whole week of painstaking writing.
Fortunately, there are areas of the web where the arguments between creationists and scientists are well documented. One of them, for example, is
It is recommended to review.
Lavi-"The change of bacteria as a result of antibiotics is exactly the best example of evolution because very simply, in every generation the bacteria that are sensitive to antibiotics die, there are some that remain that happen to be insensitive due to mutations and they are the ones that survive and pass on their resistant genes to the next generations."- This just shows how conductive people are Deceived by "science".
In the bacterium that becomes resistant to the antibiotic, no gene patent, new complex mechanism was renewed. What happened is a point mutation whose probability is close to 100 percent. No new gene was created here. The antibiotic works in such a way that it is adapted to a very specific part of the bacterium. As soon as this changes even slightly (because of a simple mutation even in one nucleotide), it will cease to affect it. This is as different as water from the earth regarding the formation of a new functional gene. That is, a sequence of hundreds of nucleotides that appears in one fell swoop. This is something that evolution cannot prove.
(With the exception of the frame shift mutation in the famous nylon digestion, but even there the example disproves Dawkins' small steps model due to probability calculations). Therefore, bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evidence of evolution.
"Watches are created by a watchmaker, children are created in a way that is difficult to describe without the site being classified as a site that must not be accessed, first one cell is created and then it divides and the cells that are created from it differentiate.
As soon as it is possible to produce a person like a watch is produced on a production line, people will have reason to believe in your intelligent creator." - But this is exactly what happens in the human body - the human production line is the ribosome, the carrier RNA proteins, the messenger RNA, the anticodons and the wonderful codons that know To translate the genetic code, whose form has become snotty, into a complex human being with its many organs, features and wonders.
Legal - "But, all the creatures on the face of the earth were not created and are not created in an engineering way, nothing was planned in advance, and without planning and purpose there is no planner either." Intelligent, only by the ability to reproduce, even without evidence of this."
Icrowax:
It has already been explained to you countless times and you are on your own.
A watch needs a watchmaker and an intelligent designer needs a twisted mind to invent it and see an explanation in it despite all the knowledge gained to date.
ermac, you are absolutely right: a watch needs a watchmaker, a car, a house, plastic products and every other engineering product needs a designer (and he is indeed a completely intelligent designer!). But, all the creatures on the face of the earth were not created and are not being created in an engineering manner, nothing was planned in advance, and without planning and purpose there is also no planner.
ERMAC You are like all three monkeys together - you don't see, you don't hear and you talk but nonsense.
The change of bacteria as a result of antibiotics is exactly the best example of evolution because very simply in every generation the bacteria that are sensitive to antibiotics die, some remain that happen to be insensitive due to mutations and they are the ones that survive and pass on their resistant genes to the next generations.
Clocks are created by a watchmaker, children are created in a way that is difficult to describe without the site being classified as a site that must not be accessed, first one cell is created and then it divides and the cells that are created from it differentiate.
Once a person can be manufactured like a watch is manufactured on a production line people will have reason to believe in your intelligent creator.
To my shepherd - your message is indeed addressed to my people, but I cannot ignore your words.
You said - "The current theory may not be complete yet, but as far as I know there is no alternative theory". Perhaps you need to move around the world more. It is known that there are other scientific movements for evolution. The leading one is, of course, intelligent design. Its starting point is that a watch needs a watchmaker and who who claims otherwise, the burden of proof is on him. Evolution claims that a watch does not require a watchmaker as long as the ability to reproduce + mutations and natural selection are included in the equation. However, claims are separate and reality is separate. Until it is proven that the process of natural selection + mutations has the power to create complexity like a clock, a car, an airplane. The starting point is We were created by a designer. What to do, watches. Living things are not created from mud puddles. Something in nature doesn't like it...
Ami,
First of all, congratulations on starting your work as a postdoctoral fellow! I hope you will have many articles and fruitful and interesting research.
Regarding your message, I must say you left me without a real understanding of things. On the one hand, you say there are problems with evolution, and I don't disagree with that. On the other hand, you are unwilling to propose another theory.
So... what are you actually trying to say here? The current theory may still be incomplete, but as far as I know there is no alternative theory. Only the current theory is able to logically link all the pieces of information. Why, then, not accept the current theory?
Aerox:
You didn't bring any refutations to evolution here. Just throwing empty slogans in the air, gathering reasons from her theory and the sayings of sages and these reasons have been refuted and you are waving probabilistic knowledge that you don't have and wisdom that you also don't have
A small big note - whoever thinks that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is "evidence" for evolution is greatly mistaken. I have already brought refutations of evolution here before. Anyone who wants to hear more is welcome.
Michael,
From your last response I learned that the gap in my perception between us is too great to bridge and that we do not see eye to eye on any of the above claims. Therefore, I prefer, with your permission, to stop the interesting discussion between us and allow other commenters to take my place.
Thank you very much and see you in other threads,
Ami Bachar
Ami:
I have already said many times that science has no claim to the truth, but only to the way in which it can be pursued.
At each stage we have a collection of theories which are - as I have often said - the best guess we can make based on the facts.
The very practice of science is based on doubt.
Therefore the "faith" you attribute to me or to Roy does not exist at all.
Simply - when dealing with science - the question of doubt is taken out of parentheses. It always exists and there is no point in mentioning it.
Therefore, the scientific establishment - contrary to your claim - is more open to innovations than any other human community.
The thing is that when you talk about scientific topics you are expected to say something new. If, for example, you have an idea that is good from the theory of evolution - you are definitely expected to present it. If you don't have such an idea and if the current situation is even such that there is no idea even in the distant horizon after evolution, then there is no point in saying that you doubt. This is clear and self-evident, on the one hand, and it will not affect any practical step you take, on the other hand.
Dear Roy,
All your arguments are correct and good. The criticism towards the approach you present and mistakenly attribute it to me, is a valid criticism. The small correction I need to make is really the matter of attribution to me: things are not black and white as you attribute to me. As you know professional is a science. I even recently started my first postdoctoral job (congratulations) and I absolutely love my job. I make extensive use of theories and practices based on Darwinian evolution (you may even see a tree or two in my publications). I am not decisive enough to rule everything out and throw it aside. I don't know and therefore I refrain from taking a position with the determination that characterizes Michael and you, for example. You are quite firm in this "belief" that Darwinian evolution is a done deal and that your fossils and genomes and bacteria unquestionably point the way. I decide to be careful and admit that there is a certain problematic in some aspects of this hypothesis. Science does not like hesitation. Love to hear an expert say something decisive that he "knows for sure" after thorough research and discovery (preferably in a newspaper with a respectable factor). I find this attitude to be the root of all evil and how helpful it is in my mental fixation. Science has proven over and over again over its thousands of years that what is beyond doubt true today is idolatry tomorrow. Science is a tool with practical and theoretical applications. He's great fun, he's my job. But it is not necessarily an absolute truth and I even dare to say that there is a high probability that large parts of it are a serious mistake..
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Ami,
If I understand correctly, your problem with evolution is that we can never prove it without an actual time machine. It is something that happened in the past, and as long as we can't reproduce it in a horribly complicated lab experiment (where a 'monkey' becomes a human), we can't trust it.
In other words, the fossils we find and all the other indirect evidence (such as DNA) do not point in the obvious direction.
In the same way you can say that the sun revolves around the earth, but due to an optical illusion imposed on us, we cannot understand this yet.
And you might be right. This possibility cannot be ruled out. But there is no point in referring to it either, because the theory we have explains the rotation of the earth perfectly. As long as you don't bring proof of your other theory, or proof of any other theory that would explain the events to a good extent, there is no reason to cancel the existing theory.
I agree with you that there are situations in which our human desire to find an explanation exceeds common sense. As our friend Mr. Sabdarmish likes to say, we have no real idea what is happening in the vastness of the galaxies. We can only guess, relying on the laws that exist in our immediate environment. But the Earth is not the end of the universe. Strong evidence has been discovered to confirm evolution, including many fossils, shared DNA, the continuous evolution of bacteria, insects and even fish...
Do you want to argue that evolution is a hypothesis, because we will never be able to know what really happened there, but we work from indirect evidence? If so, the sun may also revolve around the earth, because we only work according to what our eyes see, and we already know that optical illusions exist in the world. Atoms are also nothing more than a hypothesis, because we have never even been able to see them, but only feel a faint electric force in an atomic force microscope (AFM).
In short, if I understand your message correctly, you can throw aside all theories and scientific knowledge. He is worth nothing. Maybe tomorrow we will wake up and find out that we are aliens and we only dreamed all this.
To doubt everything, to accept nothing - even if we have good evidence for its existence...
This is the meaning of the eternal skepticism you offer.
Greetings friends,
Roy.
I am always amused by the interesting debate between the creationists and the evolutionists, for the simple reason that the creationists demand proofs as solid as steel, always trying to undermine the solid structure of the theory of evolution, they try, without success and with a minimum of understanding and sometimes ignorance, when they themselves lack any ability to say anything true that is beyond wishful thinking heart or social conditioning by virtue of the inertia of belief. They demand evidence from the theory of evolution and offer an irrefutable idea and demand from the other side a complete and coherent description. So the debate is between opposing approaches that will never be settled.
For the benefit of all those who come across creationists of various kinds, who have learned one overwhelming argument (in their opinion), against the Darwinist theory, I highly recommend the following website, which has helped me a lot, in debates with such intellectuals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Ami:
I have no problem with your terms as long as you clarify them and even if that was not the way I would have interpreted the words in the first place, the clarification makes this fact irrelevant.
Therefore I am willing, for the purpose of the conversation, to use your terms for theory and hypothesis.
What else?
It appears from your words that in fact no theory can be described about the past and all that can be formulated for it are hypotheses that will be considered hypotheses forever. In such a case, your claim that evolution is only a hypothesis is simply a tautology that does not derive from the theory of evolution and not from the efforts that have been or will be made to confirm it, but simply from the fact that evolution discusses the past.
If this is the case, and if you want to form a position regarding competing hypotheses as well, you must define a scale for ranking these hypotheses.
It seems to me that according to any reasonable ranking scale, evolution has no competing hypothesis and that it is proven more or less to the same degree that the fact that I am the son of my parents is proven (the truth is that as one of the mechanisms operating in nature, it is much more striking than the fact that I am the son of my parents because, as mentioned, it can be proven at all mathematically the operation of this mechanism. The only question that can arise, as mentioned, is only if there are other mechanisms).
Dear Mr. Cezana,
I have never, to the best of my recollection, taken sides or said anything in praise of creationism. To be honest - I am a complete atheist and therefore this choice is actually the least acceptable in my opinion. It seems to me that there is a slight confusion in the understanding between us. You say "Ami, one can also be too open-minded, and accept any claim without distinction" and I say: Roy, one can also be open-minded and reject any claim without distinction - as long as all/most/most of the corners in it are not closed (as it seems This is the case with the Darwinian hypothesis). Wish 2 The same presentation, it seems to me that you summed up the problem well, as I see it:
How can we explain? This is an excellent question asked by an ordinary scientist (R.C.) and indeed it is a perfectly reasonable question and absolutely deserves to be asked. The problem is not in the question, the problem is in the strong human desire to explain. Sometimes, it seems to me, we impose an explanation and believe in it, only because it is much more difficult for us to stay with a lack of explanation. What I fear happens a lot in science is actually convincing ourselves of a mechanism that seems to us to be the only logical mechanism while completely ignoring the possibility that the whole conception is wrong. I'm sure that's how, for example, all those believers felt up to the Middle Ages who were ready to cut off their right hand to bet on who revolves around whom - we revolve around the sun or it revolves around us. There was no other explanation for the fact that it rises in the east and sets in the west. But then a part of this puzzle was revealed to us and we changed the idea on its face so that it is completely the opposite of what it was. Scientists in particular like to insist on their hypothesis (because for it they continue to receive research funding, scientific honor and maybe other things).
As for the comments at the end of your comment about creationism, I would like to leave such a discussion to the other commenters.
To Michael:
You asked good questions and my official answer is "I don't know". I allow myself to admit that I don't know and I try not to make decisions based on half-confirmations of one kind or another. I am allowed not to know and I am allowed to be in the dark. In fact, for me there is no other choice. I don't have an alternative mechanism. Does this mean that the existing mechanism (Darwinism for example) is the right idea?
Now I would like to say something to the other readers:
As far as I understand the scientific terminology, theories and hypothesis are different from each other. A theory is actually a hypothesis confirmed by controlled experiments. A hypothesis is still an immature idea that, in order for it to become a theory that describes reality as a model, it must be researched and proven. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis, in my opinion. Some believe that it is an absolute truth and that their opinion rests because of these and other research experiments, therefore they call it "Darwin's evolutionary theory" and the like. In order to prove something, experimentally, it must be done in practice - of course. Thus, if, let's say, a scientist wants to claim that man is descended from the ape, he will have to reproduce the phenomenon. This is apparently impossible, and therefore the scientists are forced to give indirect confirmations and references such as fossils, genetic similarity and behavioral similarity in front of members of the Knesset. As mentioned, there are those who believe this and there are those who do not.
If my understanding of the theory/hypothesis terminology is wrong - I would be happy to be enlightened.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Ami:
I disagree with your opinion regarding the openness of the scientists and also with Ran Levy's claim that anyone who says he is researching going back in time (and shows that he has a serious and well-founded research plan) will lose his budget (and by the way - see it's a miracle - the subject is really researched non-stop. The fact that there is no one Who develops a time machine is because no one knows how to do it and as soon as there is a hint of an idea a budget will certainly not be a limitation but on the contrary it will be difficult to control the factors that will line up to finance the development and win some of its fruits).
Scientists as a community are very open about any topic that comes to mind and the only reason why they are described as fixed is that they demand seriousness. People who oppose evolution, on the other hand, are unusually fixated because they continue to support ideas that do not have a shred of confirmation and prefer them to those that have received a lot of confirmation. What, in your opinion, can even convince someone who is still not convinced by all the evidence I have brought? I'm satisfied, in fact even if time travel and direct observation of evolution will convince him but let's see you propose something applicable. That is - let's say that evolution is an existing fact - what needs to happen for someone who, despite the above evidence, rejects it, for them to accept it?
I said that every scientific claim is just a theory. I also said that today there is no serious claim that even begins to compete with evolution. Do you accept this statement? If you accept it - what do the supporters of evolution have to do to convince you of their openness?
Ami,
There is a big difference between keeping one's head open and tearing the cranial cavity wide open.
I believe (and I may be wrong), that I keep an open mind. I am interested in other people's opinions, and I am willing to accept many corrections to evolution. I am willing (and have published an article about it) to accept the idea that evolution is more complicated than relying on active genes alone. I also have no problem with the eugenic theory and its additions to the evolution of natural selection, or with the principle of respect (which seems to have some basic logic, but it should not be overused as some researchers in the field do).
What else?
I find it difficult to accept an alternative theory, which relies on two simple arguments:
1. God created the world, animals and man 6000 years ago.
2. So how can one explain the geological layers, the measurement of carbon 14, the thousands of fossils that indicate an evolutionary relationship between animals, the proven genetic similarity between corals and humans, and so on?
Very simply - God created the world in such a way that only -=seem=- as if there is evolution.
But actually there isn't.
God just did it. Because he feels like it. It's all just a big trick at our expense.
Ami, it is also possible to be too open-minded, and to accept any claim indiscriminately. But I prefer to check claims before I accept them. And the argument of the creationists of sorts is very simple: evolution cannot exist, because God created us. When they are asked for evidence or proof, they cannot provide it. They have no real theory to replace evolution with.
You say that scientists should always be skeptical. But at the same time you complain that most scientists are skeptical about creationism. Precisely because I am a skeptic, I question the creationist dogma. I doubt it, examine it from all angles, and decide that its inner irrationality is unacceptable to me.
And that is why I am not ready to accept creationism. Not out of the inertial force of the theory of evolution known today in scientific institutions, and not out of skepticism and suspicion of anything that is unfamiliar to me. I'm not willing to accept it simply because it doesn't make sense, and it can't be proven or disproved.
When creationism can make predictions of events that are supposed to occur in controlled experiments, and those predictions are matched, then I will be more than happy to accept the possibility that there is something to the idea of creation.
By then,
Greetings friends,
Roy.
This discussion comes up from time to time when an article of this type comes out and uncompromising reactions. It seems to me that a proof for one is still a hypothesis for the other. For example, while Michael is content with fossils as confirmation for evolution, another will remain a skeptic and the "confirmation" will not satisfy him.
Darwinian evolution is a very common thing today. You don't need to invest too much energy in academics in order to convince them to be Darwinian evolutionists, because it more or less comes built-in. The debate and discussion surrounding evolutionary studies today are always based on Darwin and only discuss one refinement or another.
Scientists should always be skeptical. What has been happening in the last hundred years is that science is becoming a strong current that whoever disagrees with it is met with anger and lack of understanding. In my opinion, this situation is wrong and does not violate. In Ran Levy's article, which Michael mentioned, there is an analogy regarding physics scientists who decide to investigate going back in time and there Ran Levy says, they discover the only thing that is faster than the speed of light and that is the letter from the head of the faculty to them that ends the connection between the researcher and the university. It's pretty similar.
I hope that scientists will continue to keep an open mind and will never settle (as far as possible, which is hardly possible) on one or another theory or hypothesis.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Michael preceded me...
Ami:
Your response somewhat refers to another article that appeared here today - the article discussing time travel.
There is, of course, no way to directly confirm the past, but there are indirect ways.
If the theory of evolution requires the existence of an animal that is a whale with legs and a fossil of such an animal is discovered, this can be seen as confirmation for evolution.
If she "predicts" other hominid types between man and monkey and such fossils are discovered - this is another confirmation.
If, in addition to this, we see that by applying human selection (which is by the way a type of natural selection) on animals and plants we manage to adapt them to our needs - this is another proof. Although we have not yet created a new species here, we have significantly increased the diversity within the species.
In fact, we also have evidence of the formation of new species and the existence of the horse and the donkey as two different species but so close to the point of common reproductive (barren) ability that cannot be explained otherwise.
As you can see - this is decisive evidence that does not only concern micro-organisms, but to remove any shadow of doubt, controlled experiments were also carried out - although with plants and insects whose life cycle is shorter, there is no doubt that they provide additional significant confirmation (see http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf).
Add to this the fact that the mechanism of evolution is understood by us today to a large extent and this understanding is expressed both in our ability to create animals with new features in the laboratory and in its mathematical understanding - an understanding that is expressed, beyond the mathematical proofs, also in computer simulations of evolution (such as genetic programming, neural networks studying or just playing games like Life) that give useful results and you will be convinced that there is zero room to doubt the existence of the process (in fact, mathematically, there is absolutely no doubt that it exists and doubts can only arise in the question of whether this is all there is or whether something more is involved in life).
The questions regarding the existence of an additional factor are not driven by scientific motives today, since the answer of evolution is so close to an exhaustive explanation that it seems illogical to look for something else, but when you examine the proposals that are offered in relation to the same additional thing by those who claim its existence (proposals that are often described, without any shame, as the only one there is, while completely denying evolution) these, beyond the fact that they are unnecessary, do not explain anything.
That's why evolution (like any scientific law) is only a theory (as well as, by the way, every claim of an honest person), but a theory that is backed up by very many confirmations - like any other scientific theory - and such that to this day no replacement has been offered at all (because it is not possible to define "theories" whose starting premises are the existence of life - and more supreme life in every human sense - as a condition for the existence of life, an explanation for the creation of life).
One thing is clear:
Evolution encourages research, the deepening of knowledge and thus refines and improves itself based on new discoveries and ideas. - This is science!!!
The creationist Torah comes from the assumption that everything is known and exists from the beginning of creation. Therefore there is no room for research and new discoveries. - This is religion. And unfortunately, these are the stupid faces of religion because, those who claim to be omniscient in advance, their end, that their lack of knowledge will be revealed to many.
This is, in my opinion, the reason why science flourishes today precisely in civilizations whose religion claimed to know everything - and failed -
Christianity and Judaism.
Evolution is a very broad concept and has quite a few commentators and quite a few developments since Darwin.
Hypothesis or fact? My personal opinion on the matter is that this is only a hypothesis and in fact many chapters of this hypothesis have no possibility to be bridged with the help of laboratory experiments. Various laboratory experiments show development (evolution) in animals with a very short generation (ie, some microorganisms). There are no experiments that show that there is a mammal, let's say, today that is undergoing development - although this sounds absolutely logical. I disagree with the scholarly opinion ofRoey Tsezana and mention that even in the academy in life sciences circles, there will always be skeptics on this matter, so "science" is not unanimous, although it is absolutely possible to say that for the most part scientists are in favor of this theory.
It should also be added that for the most part scientists have no idea what it is about and the subject is known to them only anecdotally, as it is known to people who are not engaged in science. Few deal with evolution and therefore few understand the meaning of this broad hypothesis.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Paddy,
According to the scientific community, evolution is indeed a fact, proven daily in biology laboratories and hospitals.
I don't know what the opinion of the 'general public' is, but since the general public takes medicines invented with the help of an understanding of the principle of evolution, it is appropriate that their opinion be accordingly. Evolution is an established fact.
Ignorants who claim that evolution is only a "theory" have to answer that gravity is also only a "theory". But just as no sane person can doubt that bodies fall downward (that is, towards the center of the earth), so anyone who examines the innumerable evidence cannot deny the evolution of species as first described by Darwin. The word theory is attached to both cases out of modesty and nothing else. It is true that one can argue about the origin of gravity, but not about its very existence, nor about the theory's ability to predict its results with great accuracy. In the same way, it is possible to argue about the initial origin of life and the exact mechanisms operating in the process of natural selection, but not about the very existence of evolution.
But what can we expect from Menachem ben the demagogue who is detached from reality and who claims that diseases such as AIDS and cancer are a fib of the scientific establishment?
Mechabat - Repentant. These are mainly aggressive people who are ready to make excuses for anything to condemn evolution. The most prominent example of this are the preachers who advocate the intelligent design movement who try to influence school boards of education all over the US to downplay the value of evolution and give equal time to their theory which is actually a religion in disguise. Although most of the advocates of this belief are Protestants, they were joined by many Jews (I have not heard of a single convert who is willing to compromise on the issue of evolution) and Catholics, including the current Pope (who thereby reversed the position of his predecessor).
But what is MAHAT?
I have a question :
According to the scientific community, and only according to it, is evolution considered a fact?
I don't want you to refer to the opinion of the general public only according to the scientists.
I think the answer is yes