Evolution as a proven natural phenomenon must be separated from all kinds of philosophies of the type of social Darwinism that have nothing to do with the theory itself, reads a British think tank * Separate studies have shown that in Great Britain and the USA about half of the population does not believe in evolution despite the unequivocal evidence in its favor
Was Darwin right, should school students be exposed to the opposing view in science classes? These two issues have been with us for a long time, perhaps because the number of supporters in each of them is quite similar.
The scientific community and the courts that discussed the issue say that countless unequivocal evidence supports Darwin's explanation of the origin and origin of species, including humans, by natural selection.
Many people, especially religious and social conservatives oppose this. Among them are the creationists who take the story of the book of Genesis most literally according to which God created the world and humans in six days several thousand years ago (the exact number varies between the Jews and some Christians who rely on Archbishop Asher, but the difference between the versions is slight - some hundreds of years BC). Others support a theory known as "intelligent design," the idea that life is too complicated to have arisen without a supernatural planner, presumably by God.
This week, the Theos organization, a think tank that promotes science, published in Britain that about half of the British population is skeptical about Darwinian evolution.
According to Nick Spencer, director of research at Theos, this does not mean that half of Britons are creationists or supporters of the theory of intelligent design. About a quarter of them will be defined as convinced and consistent in their opposition to evolution, but the rest are simply skeptical. They tend towards evolution but show doubts about it, betting more on rationalism and intelligent planning.
Why did this happen in the country where Darwin worked and whose portrait is emblazoned on the back of a fairly common banknote - 10 pounds? How is it that the scientific consensus is as unequivocal in favor of evolution as it is in favor of heliocentrism (that the sun is at the center of the solar system and not the earth) but public opinion is so skeptical?
There are several reasons why such a large social phenomenon requires a variety of explanations, but one of the most common reasons is strangely reminiscent of what we were a century ago.
Opposed to evolution because of "social Darwinism"
In a research paper dealing with the acceptance of Darwinism in Britain and America in the 19th century, James Moore observed the phenomenon "apart from a few exceptions, the Christian intellectuals in Britain and America have come to be ready to accept Darwinism and evolution". Popular opinion at the time, especially in America was more opposed, but mainly because of the opposition to evolution as a social phenomenon rather than as a scientific doctrine. Social Darwinism seems to be right and therefore protecting the weak and vulnerable is against nature. Only the fit should survive. It goes without saying that this doctrine found little sympathy among those considered weak or unfit and helped fuel anti-evolutionary sentiments in the early XNUMXth century, particularly in America where Social Darwinism was more influential.
A similar thing is happening today, popular opinion presents Darwinism not as an elegant and proven scientific theory, but as a quasi-metaphysical theory, a point of view on life that has made science tied together with reducism, nihilism, atheism and abnormality. The fact that this is a wrong opinion, and that evolution does not work this way because humans are a smart animal that can overcome 'weaknesses'. It is also a social animal and therefore the ability to survive does not depend on the strength of a single person.
This apparent Darwinism is such that morality (if it can still be spoken of) is calculable and dependent on self-interest, an arbitrary ethical system, an agency of illusions rather than irrelevant and accidental. Love, contribution to the community, compassion and altruism are tendencies rooted in selfishness. The human brain is an artificial artifact created when memes rebuild the brain to make a better habitat for memes. The universe is reduced to blind force and physical replication that has no purpose, neither good nor bad, nothing but blind and pitiless indifference.
Not surprisingly, this approach (which is common as mentioned even though it is false) is not convincing and does not attract many people and as a result, when people are faced with evolution they are torn between believing in the scientific consensus but rejecting what seem to be the consequences of being Darwinism in its entirety.
The disaster is that none of this is necessary at all. This grim evidence does not reflect Darwin's own opinion. This is also not the point of view of scientists, many of them religious, who wrote popular articles about Darwin in England and the USA. Nor was this the point of view of some of the early fundamentalists, some of whom were convinced Darwinists. And that shouldn't be the position today either.
The evidence for evolution through natural selection is overwhelming and growing year by year. The evidence that evolution necessitates the death of God and humanity, is moral and has a trending purpose, rests more on rhetoric than on logic.
.
If we hope to reduce the high level of skepticism about evolution in the UK and certainly in the US, we need to separate science about which there are no doubts and between the philosophies that surround evolution and which are themselves controversial and there is nothing between them and evolution and nothing.
It should be noted that a significant part of the creative wave passing over Britain comes from the Muslim population. The leaders of Islam accept creation unequivocally and oppose any scientific explanation that contradicts the Holy Scriptures.
Only about half of Americans believe in evolution
Public opinion polls continue to show that Americans are divided in their views on evolution. The last Gallup poll published in June 2007 found that 49% of those surveyed say they believe in evolution and 48% say they don't. These support rates remain stable for at least 25 years. Gallup also found a political connection to this. Two-thirds of Republicans reject Darwin's theory, while most Democrats and independents accept it.
A Harris study published in December found that more people believe in the devil, hell and angels than in evolution. The debate is especially fierce in public schools, where conservatives want evolution to disappear from the science curriculum or at least be described as "theory not fact." Darwin's supporters answer that a scientific theory is not just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation backed by events supported by the best available evidence.
The theory of evolution itself is evolving. Since Darwin's day, researchers have acquired powerful tools that reveal the role of DNA in passing heredity from generation to generation, something Darwin knew nothing about. Around the middle of the 20th century this led to the modern synthesis, a revision of the theory of evolution to include the new information. Many biologists are now proposing to make another big update, hence Modern Synthesis 2.0. For example, Darwin describes evolution as the growth of a tree, the "tree of life", the tree starts with a simple creature at its root, and complex creatures branch out from each branch.
Biologists say that evolution is more like a web or a bush than a tree. Bacteria are constantly exchanging DNA, hybrid plants and animals cross species lines, blurring the clear lines between species. "We understand evolution very well," said Ford Doolittle, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. "It's just that it's much more complicated than Darwin described."
The conclusion: they take a real theory, expand it in a false way and then demand to accept both parts as one. Natural evolution is a real theory, which has billions of proofs - from the rapid transformation of the AIDS virus, through bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the transformation of terrestrial mammals that became marine mammals, to name just a few of them. Social Darwinism is the product of the invention and interpretation of political parties who wish to stir up a fight, therefore tying the two things together is intended to tarnish the smell of science, and to play into the hands of clerics whose entire goal is to hide the scientific truth from the public of their believers.
Darwin was born 200 years ago, and if he could, he would surely be turning over in his grave, the fact that he is being treated the same way as Galileo, who these days celebrated 400 years since his first observation through a telescope, would not comfort him. But it won't help them, the truth about nature is coming out and will continue to come out. The lie regarding the alleged social aspects of the theory of evolution will also be revealed. After all, today, with the exception of dark regimes, people who perceive themselves as weak have no problem receiving one form or another of assistance from non-profit organizations. There is no one today who believes that the deprivation of a certain person or group is a result of the nature of those people, and if there is such a thing, a coup should be quickly made against him and he will stop believing this.
For information on the THEOS website
A special project on the Hidan site - 200 years since Darwin's birth
447 תגובות
First - biological evolution is true as far as we can validate scientific theories. There is no better theory than it, and competing theories or "theories" that tried to conform reality to the Holy Scriptures or to "simple logic" (such as the claim that order can only arise from the existence of an intelligent planner) have failed. For example, computer scientists today show how a complex order can develop from relatively simple starting conditions and an evolutionary process of experimenting and discarding the less favorable results.
Second - it is clear that the theory of evolution has social consequences. Both because it changes our understanding of biology, the origin of man, and his relationship to nature and because it changes our understanding of the relationships between humans and the ability of humans to behave rationally. Evolution and biology in general have no choice but to influence and limit what can be said in the social sciences, just as physics and chemistry have no choice but to be the boundaries of biology. There is no biology that can escape from physics and no society that can escape from biology.
Third - "social evolution" is based on a series of imprecise assumptions. Dumga has the idea that there is a "superior person" or qualities that are easy to identify and that are necessarily always useful. Ovulation means that the fit survive - but the circumstances change all the time and what gives an advantage in X circumstances may be a disadvantage in Y circumstances. A muscular body, a bigger brain and more are not necessarily an advantage in every situation. Sexual reproduction among multicellular organisms is precisely designed to provide a genetic diversity large enough to cope with changing circumstances
Fourth - obviously science cannot give all the social explanations, there are also philosophical questions, but these should remain within the fields that science outlines. You can ask many philosophical questions and on this basis build different social theories, but it is desirable that all philosophies be in the field that science allows
Fifth, as we mentioned here, science needs to ask questions and look for correct answers. It is not the role of science to "flex" to adapt itself to the will of the religious or any other social current.
Sixth - evolution or processes similar enough to it occur in other non-biological processes - for example "evolution" of car models and of technology in general - there are differences - for example you can take an engine of one car and "plant" it in a model of another car. It is possible to perform reverse engineering and other differences, but the mechanism of models that some survive and some do not, in the process of adapting to the environment - is also true for technologies. Or if you want the version of the selfish gene - the knowledge that makes technology possible "wants" to replicate itself and is very successful in doing so.
My position is different.
First - biological evolution is true as far as we can validate scientific theories. There is no better theory than it, and competing theories or "theories" that tried to conform reality to the Holy Scriptures or to "simple logic" (such as the claim that order can only arise from the existence of an intelligent planner) have failed. For example, computer scientists today show how a complex order can develop from relatively simple starting conditions and an evolutionary process of experimenting and discarding the less favorable results.
Second - it is clear that the theory of evolution has social consequences. Both because it changes our understanding of biology, the origin of man, and his relationship to nature and because it changes our understanding of the relationships between humans and the ability of humans to behave rationally. Evolution and biology in general have no choice but to influence and limit what can be said in the social sciences, just as physics and chemistry have no choice but to be the boundaries of biology. There is no biology that can escape from physics and no society that can escape from biology.
Third - "social evolution" is based on a series of imprecise assumptions. Dumga has the idea that there is a "superior person" or qualities that are easy to identify and that are necessarily always useful. Ovulation means that the fit survive - but the circumstances change all the time and what gives an advantage in X circumstances may be a disadvantage in Y circumstances. A muscular body, a bigger brain and more are not necessarily an advantage in every situation. Sexual reproduction among multicellular organisms is precisely designed to provide a genetic diversity large enough to cope with changing circumstances
Fourth - obviously science cannot give all the social explanations, there are also philosophical questions, but these should remain within the fields that science outlines. You can ask many philosophical questions and on this basis build different social theories, but it is desirable that all philosophies be in the field that science allows
Fifth, as we mentioned here, science needs to ask questions and look for correct answers. It is not the role of science to "flex" to adapt itself to the will of the religious or any other social current.
Sixth - evolution or processes similar enough to it occur in other non-biological processes - for example "evolution" of car models and of technology in general - there are differences - for example you can take an engine of one car and "plant" it in a model of another car. It is possible to perform reverse engineering and other differences, but the mechanism of models that some survive and some do not, in the process of adapting to the environment - is also true for technologies. Or if you want the version of the selfish gene - the knowledge that makes technology possible "wants" to replicate itself and is very successful in doing so.
איציק
The only real challenge here is to understand what you wrote.
By the way, the aliens called, they want their spaceship back.
Hello to my father Blizovsky,
The rejection of the assumption that embryology is relevant to establishing the theory of evolution, because there is no need for it in view of the fact that in the 19th century they did not know about DNA, is factually identical to the development of the theory of evolution by Darwin and Mark, when in their time they knew nothing about DNA...therefore, it is clear Any other theory should not be dismissed outright, even if it is not based on the use of information based on DNA. Even if it is possible to predict today through the theory of evolution, the processes of natural selection that exist in nature, there are still processes that I call unpredictable in the human environment precisely... such a process can be when there is a deliberate preference for artificial selection processes that man creates and directs on his own initiative and may in the process make serious mistakes..
There are no shortage of examples and they are known to us as animal shelters that serve us for various purposes. If we move towards futuristic effects in this area, we will reach results that can be in the possession of science fiction and get out of control under certain conditions. In this case, I mean the phenomenon of genetic engineering of plants that have advantages in terms of quality and yield, but may also have additional and undesirable properties that may get out of control (also regarding bacteria developed for negative purposes).
Another and no less significant danger is the development of artificial intelligence at a futuristic level. About 20 years ago, it was not believed that a computer would beat the world champion in chess. Today, there are supercomputers up to this task. This computer is able to analyze moves it made wrong and avoid it in the future and hence it also has self-learning ability....
The main problem is that a futuristic computer along the lines of the films "Back to the Future", "Space Odyssey", etc., will succeed in bypassing limitations (which appear in Asimov's writings) and will become independent and create an army of robots that will follow the laws of evolution and survival of these robots, which are much more advanced than humans, and will be able to control them . They may decide that the person is unnecessary and bothers them and rely on means of control that they can achieve. In such a reality all the rules of evolution will change completely... the answer to such a fictional reality is in the realm of fiction and science fiction.
Today, changes are evident in the scientific perception that we are not alone in the universe (if only for the statistical reason that there is no logic in the assumption that out of billions of galaxies and billions of suns and star systems, in each of them, only Earth contains intelligent life.... Today scientists such as Hawking take this possibility seriously. Here again, the possibility that indeed Intelligent life has developed on other stars. In such a reality, the question arises of their development according to rules of evolution similar to ours or different in its results? Must in such a reality an unequivocal result such as humanoids be obtained? Or may the results be completely different and the resulting creatures may be, for example, dolphin-like with arms and legs …..
I believe that a challenge has been created here for everyone who reads this and it is hoped that responses will be received accordingly.
Thanks .
Hello to my father Blizovsky,
I am interested in your response to the arguments I brought in relation to the results of studies that were done and published in this regard and an answer to the questions that arise as a result:
Isn't there some parallel and great agreement between the information on features that appear in: DNA and the stages of embryonic development? (For the purpose of such a study it is indeed easier to examine poor creatures whose number of traits is few and whose life cycle is short).
The study of fossils helps to know according to the age of the fossils (carbon 14 tests) the period in which they existed and in addition we also use the geological stratum in which they were discovered, in order to complete this information. If you reconstruct the appearance of the creature and differentiate it to give additional species that diverged from a certain source, does this not prove the theory The evolution that holds that only subspecies that have a mutation that gives them an advantage over members of their species (that do not have this mutation), managed to survive in environmental conditions that have changed for the worse and could because of their priority dominate that area?
Did you manage to create artificial mutations and new genes that through genetic engineering can be used to cure diseases or create better artificial organs than existing ones?
In a TV show that featured a strange skull (now found in the USA) a DNA test was done. The surprising results showed that the mother's DNA is of human origin and, in contrast, it was not possible to identify that the father's DNA is known...
Also, strange muffins will be found in the skull. Unrecognizable fibers in structure and improbable size of the brain.
Is it known that this discovery is referred to as proof of hybridization that is also mentioned in the Bible regarding hybridization between extraterrestrials and the human race?
In the series of programs "Aliens from the Past" it is told about knowledge in astronomy and agriculture, which was ahead of its time that aliens who visited South America and were in contact with the Mayan and Inca civilizations. Is the assumption that also verifies this with folklore sources in other places such as the Sumerians and ancient Egypt, not amount to proof of extraterrestrial involvement planned by Koi A description of human history and evolutionary development?
Thanks Isaac
Isaac from Jerusalem, the story of embryology that imitates the evolution of that creature is simply a lie of pseudo-scientists and is no longer valid since the beginning of the 20th century.
Evolution does not need an abbreviated manual to be correct, there are enough other means than to use the intuition of the people of the 19th century.
For this purpose, modern knowledge about DNA must be used.
To my father Blizovsky, Michael, Roy Shachar and sorry if I forgot someone else who took part in the interesting discussion (crossing various fields and topics). (I apologize for taking part in it at a late stage).
It is important for me to voice another opinion, which shines a new light on an important thing that slipped through your fingers.
If we examine the theory of embryo development (embryology), we will discover a very interesting phenomenon. In all forms of life (more developed as well as inferior ones such as worms and insects). In all of them, there is an embryonic development mechanism that contains stages of development (a sort of "diary" or genetic instruction book that is dictated by the DNA). In any such form of life, the stages of embryonic development coincide in the order of their appearance and in their characteristics with the evolutionary development of that creature.
Therefore, it can be deduced from this how advanced that creature is in the stages of its evolutionary development compared to other creatures (close to it or completely different from it). For example: a single cell like the amoeba will not develop into a more advanced creature at all, but will divide into two. Therefore, it can be said about the amoeba that it is the ancient creature The sandalwood goes through the stages of its embryonic development, more stages and is therefore considered a more advanced creature than the amoeba. If we examine other creatures and animals using this method, we will reach the same conclusion by comparing them with each other. (All this without needing modern knowledge about the genetic "instruction book" of DNA which dictates differences in the specific features that distinguish each individual in a group of individuals of the same species). Therefore, the data I brought also indicate the evolutionary scale of man...
We know based on the examination of human embryos in the stages of their embryonic development, that at certain stages they had gills and at another stage the embryo will look like two lives, etc. Therefore, the order of the stages and the examination of each of them on its own, teaches us a lot about the way of our evolutionary development and about each such stage before himself.
For all those who claim the supreme involvement in this process (God or extraterrestrials and aliens), it can be said that theoretically this possibility does exist. It is possible that such an extraterrestrial entity decided to make a change of direction in this development and created a great acceleration in the "natural selection" process to significantly shorten it compared to a long natural process And much more complex in its conditions…..
Food for thought indeed.
Thanks in advance for reading my deleted response in this forum.
**nice**
Hogin's miracle
Lately you tend to spread your empty stupidity over a large number of nicknames. And here, in spite of this, each ** separately ** receives a large and complete dose of stupidity.
I wonder if by doing so you manage to threaten the validity of certain fiscal conservation laws?
Avi:
Do you really not recognize Hugin?
Hugin: I have no intention of educating you because you have no intention of being educated. You have proven it in your hundreds of responses here on the site when at the beginning I still devoted efforts to you but later on I realized that there was no point and it was much more convenient and useful to have fun with you.
Avi,
A red line finds great interest here. (among other equally important ones - real life itself).
It's amazing how you have all the necessary data for this moment, all the links to all the vertices of the systems.
Indeed, a laugh of fate.
If you have the possibility to block entry completely, do so.
Red line - the New Age goods do not enter here. Especially after the not-so-fruitful discussion with one named Yedidia who was not willing to hear in any way the refutation of the nonsense he believes in (return from the dead and stories of souls of various kinds).
In Israel there are 10 New Sheit sites for every site that supports logic. Go there, they accept any garbage, and offer them what you want. This is not a criticism of science and me. The things you wrote criticize reality and logic.
It was clear that Michael would come up and come immediately.
Not my father, not pure New Age at all!! That was the red line!
Judaism forbids and probably did not conjure up, blindness of senses, and guesswork in the dark!! This is also why the first kingdom in Israel fell.
But when it comes to correct and healthy reasoning such as the essence of real astrology, and you underestimate the details of its wisdom, mix things up out of ignorant, arrogant and complete ignorance and unwillingness to truly understand them, you are only underestimating yourself.
But, we will be comforted by the fact that you have released a not bad combined formula, for 'decency wastes in the spring'.
*
Say Michael: In nature, a bull is not a carnivore, is it? After all, it is a vegetarian, why does it lash out when it sees the color red? Do you have a faint idea why, what goes through its mind? Why is it called an animal, do you think it is an inferior creature to man? Why Among the Indians, its female species is considered sacred? Do you have any idea where Darwin classified it in the chain of evolution? (I really have no idea).
Enlighten me, (and without 'Wikipedia' please).
already tried it at NRG a few years ago. The writer asked me several questions in order to ask Darwin and I provided the questions, and since they had a communication breakdown with him, I also provided them with at least a general direction of the answers. That is, those of them that have scientific backing. Not for example the last one which is pure New Age garbage. I doubt if Darwin even knew these words.
To litter the garden - an indecent offer that has run out of logic and is indecent
I have an 'obscene proposal':) Let's raise the spirit of C. Darwin, and ask him what he thinks about all the gossip about him. ..
will come and go
Her friends,
I watched the video, and it can be explained in any of the ways I have already detailed before you: deliberate forgery, blurry photography and/or the ability to see human-looking details in almost every photograph.
Regarding the question you asked, about the EVP statistics, let's really focus on the statistical examination, because it is often difficult to understand the statistics and how they work.
A small question for demonstration: we start in a room full of people, and ask each one for their date of birth. There are only 25 people in the room. Would you say there is a good chance of finding that at least two of them have the same birthday?
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
her friends:
We never stop surprising you, but you - as I mentioned - bore us.
This is of course due to the fact that throughout the discussion you said nothing.
Well Roy!!
Indeed, you demonstrate a broad and impressive scientific approach,
And if I understood correctly, you reply: that it is possible that the sentences heard in the recordings presented in the video were created randomly.
And I'm a little surprised at the specific recordings presented there
These are very impressive sentences such as: 'Help me', 'Don't step on my grave'.
Or when the mother asks her what her name is, she replies 'Jamie', (the deceased's name).
Or the recording: 'Don't let your mother leave the house'.
So you have to calculate statistically, the probability that these sentences will be created by themselves.
And regarding the photos, thank you very much how you will respond to the specific photos presented in the video
the next:
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3129865
And thank you for the relevant and wise response.
Her friends,
I respect the dignity of the other person very much, but the 'other person' for me does not usually include people who call others derogatory names.
Anyway, if you look at Michael Shermer's video again, you'll see that the particularly obvious word there (that everyone noticed) was 'devil'. In any static noise you will be able to find at some point a word or two that will be particularly clear, even without having a real meaning behind it. If I had time, I'd run a few dozen static noise simulations, find one with an interesting word in it, and send it to you. I don't have the time for this, but note that every day not dozens of simulations are played, but billions of such simulations on every electronic device. There is no chance that out of all those speeches, there won't be even one word, or one sentence. And then it's enough that someone records it... and we have a ghost.
So we have an explanation, and it certainly makes sense. Unless you have unequivocal proof against him, then we'll have to reconsider the whole thing. But I am still waiting for such proof from you, as well as proof on the subject of clinical death which we have long abandoned.
Last but not least, ghost photos are usually one of two: deliberate deception (and you'd be surprised how many have confessed over the years to faking such photos), problematic photography (when the depth of focus isn't well-aimed, you can see a glowing aura surrounding the person. Maybe it's a soul But if that's the case, the car and my garbage can also have a soul), or the desire to find order and meaning in an unclear photograph (the edge of the curtain looks a bit like a woman's head. Ah-ah! It's a spirit!).
I already understood that you don't like to go to the links, but I strongly suggest you to watch the entire previous video, because it includes good examples regarding the images of the spirits as well. You don't even need to understand English too much - you can just look at the images he projects on the presentation and get an impression of the message.
If you really want to learn - and I get the impression that you do, and I appreciate it in you - I highly recommend the book "Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. You can usually find it in a bookshop, and it devotes over 300 pages to ghosts, demons, witches and so on, all out of respect for the subjects and the faith of the believers.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
To my father and Michael!
You never cease to amaze me.
What is your problem that someone does a favor, and tries to answer my questions!!??
How exactly am I interrupting your fruitful discussions??
And I look forward to your answers because you probably didn't bother to watch the videos, or you actually saw them and were a little scared, and you prefer to ignore
And I have a feeling that in your opinion the discussion has exhausted itself because you have exhausted your trite claims in the style of the "million project" "they are working on you" "someone wants to control you".
Or you refer to links and don't bother to give a brief explanation in your own words,
Or maybe because you have already run out of vocabulary in the style of "troll" etc.
And Roy, thank you for making some time for me from your busy schedule,
And comes down to my folk level, and answers matter-of-factly, only you can save yourself some time and respond briefly without all the introductions and sarcastic endings
I'm not used to it, because here we are careful to respect others.
And regarding your answer that the mind can deceive us, you made me very wise,
But one still has to ask, is it true if I come and tell you what I heard, then you can claim, I believe you that you are not lying, but the brain is deceiving you, but here we are dealing with clear recordings, close your eyes and do not read the translation,
Do you hear the same thing even without the translation…
And to tell the truth, I don't know what is defined as proof, but this phenomenon cannot be ignored, and a plausible explanation must be given.
And in the same breath, if you could please comment on the ghost pictures, how you relate to them.
Thank you for giving me your time…
Sorry, Abby, I didn't see your message before I replied. I, for my part, have exhausted the discussion.
have a nice weekend,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Her friends,
Indeed, it is a strange request on my part - that you say a few meaningful words, in order to take part in the discussion. Contrary to your opinion, I am not here to get down on you but to explain the logic behind the scientific explanation of various phenomena. If you feel humiliated or humiliated towards the end of the debate, I suggest you simply rethink your position, and try to understand if you feel that way because you support it even after all the evidence points against it.
Now that we've established your opinion, let's talk about it.
You claim that EVP is a phenomenon where the recorded voice of dead spirits can be heard, amidst static electricity or other electronic communication interference.
In order to establish the claim, we need to establish another claim first: that it is not a normal electrical disturbance, which is randomly interpreted in our ears as sound.
The problem is that our brains have evolved specifically to find order in chaos, even when such order does not exist. We are always looking for meaning in things. As an example of this, you are welcome to open the windows media player, play a song and watch the mesmerizing animation - almost running on the screen. If you do this over time, you will start to notice that in most cases the animation matches the beat of the music. Amazing, isn't it?
And now for an interesting point: animation has nothing to do with music. You are watching a completely random animation, which is not affected by the music. Your brain was just trying to make a connection between the two, just like the brain tries to hear words in random static noise.
Let's try to give further proof of this idea. Please go to the next link, and watch the minute 9:37 onwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k
It's easy to see what's going on here. Once we expect to hear certain words, our brain picks them out of the random noise. As soon as the words are projected on the screen, you manage to make them out from the noise. The same goes for static noise, or random electronic noise disturbances.
So let's make a deal, my friends. Please provide me with unequivocal proof that the voices you are hearing cannot be random static interference, and then we can move on with the discussion. Note that this proof should be well documented, and that rather reasonable coincidences should be ignored (for example, that the disorder says "Milk will tingle" just when you are being served milk with meat at the table). After all, if you drink milk every day, and there is a radio on every hour or two, then at some point there will be static that sounds exactly like words along the lines of "milk", while you drink milk.
Once you provide me with such proof, that the random EVP voices are not the product of our errant, errant, wondering minds, we can move on to all other matters.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
My friend, I repeat. I made these recordings myself. It was a psychological experiment to see how stupid humans could be to believe this.
It turns out that it worked better than expected.
My friends, after so many vain attempts to insert mystical arguments into the science website, and after attempts by all the rationalist commenters to explain to you that you are wrong, and that there are those who deliberately deceive you so that you believe in spirits and demons, and thus can control you and tell you what to do, you continue on your own.
I think it's better for all of us if this argument stops. It leads nowhere. If you have an objective criticism of the news on the site, please, the spiritual topic has already been exhausted beyond the capacity of extraction. If you are serious, make sure that the mystical sites also give an opening here to the rational truth. In any case, it's a shame for your effort here, and I'd rather turn the talkbacks to slightly more fruitful topics.
I appeal to Michael and Roy not to answer him anymore, you can't keep feeding a troll who never gets enough.
her friends:
From the beginning of the discussion until this moment you have not said anything new and you just repeat the same nonsense like a broken speaker.
You're just boring.
You have no green idea about the meaning of the word "proof" and therefore there is no point in agreeing with you on things that are conditional on any proofs.
To Michael! 1. If it turns out that this is real and not a fibrock, will you admit that it is a recording of dead spirits?
2. Who do you think initiated this fibruck, and for what purpose?
(After all, it does not serve any religion)
3. If I go to the trouble of getting you instructions to do the experiment yourself, will you try, or will you rely on
the million project,
And regarding the million project, I imagine they already tried to hold a séance there and it didn't work out,
The reason I can assume is that the spirits have limitations and they are not always allowed to cooperate, especially not in a place where a cabal will prove with a committee that the phenomenon is real, and then the choice of whether to freeze or believe will be canceled.
For example, from the testimonies of séance editors, when the spirits are asked about the existence of the Creator, then one of the two, either the glass does not move or in rare cases the glass explodes.
And one more thing, the spirits that come to the séance are souls trapped in the slingshot (and as the wise lady expressed: 'trapped souls') and are not allowed to enter a higher dimension, and as you hear from the EVP recordings, voices asking for help,
I'm very surprised how such a video does not disturb or even tickle either Roy or Michael to wonder for a moment, maybe there is something here...
Maybe the smart lady will help understand their psychology..
And Roy! For some reason he insists that I say a few words, (to get off on me later) so if you're still here, just say:
These are recordings of dead spirits, the same spirits that communicate in séances, the same spirits that were caught on camera.
And the same spirits that disturb the residents of the house in some cases.
And this is the same spirit that experiences the experience of clinical death.
Mugin,
"The head and the neurons of the brain need the spatial space in order to breathe correctly"?!
This is exactly what the phrase WTF was created for.
I then understand that your brain is very efficient with all the spice you give it...
exactly!
Start hiding behind the mask of anonymity and gossip about others gossiping!
Stop with the barbara already
Noam:
Hugin calls herself "equal" because all her responses are equal in content (which is of course worth nothing)
=:
What refined nonsense.
A collection of words without context and meaning.
Roy,
Consciousness is in the ties of an ancient and ancient tissue affinities with the brain, but is not attached to it. The head and the neurons of the brain need the spatial space in order to breathe correctly and to translate clearly the comprehensive intelligence of the 'Great Spirit' - the consciousness, or the collective sub-consciousnesses subject to the movements of the winds of time (groups the belonging of the souls-as-peoples).
But, before you try to understand:?) maybe the idea you gave yourself to bang your head against the wall :) and sleep for 7 hours, sounds effective for the time being, until you surprisingly also find the book I offered you "and today is not a bride", and then, we'll see.
: )
and her friends
Good luck, you too.
age,
Hugin tries to treat consciousness as a substance separate from the body and the mind. Proof of this kind of consciousness has never been discovered and scientifically confirmed. Consciousness, as defined by science, arises from the electrical messages in the brain, and can influence them in turn. But it is never separated from the mind.
Dear Friends,
I enjoyed the discussion that developed here, but I see that it is time to leave it. I have no intention of arguing with her friend - a person who is unable, or simply too lazy, to articulate clearly exactly what he believes. In such a situation, there is certainly no way to confirm or refute his belief. I have more productive things to do, like banging my head against the wall or sleeping seven hours a night.
If any of you want a rebuttal to the EVP idea, I refer them again to Michael Shermer's excellent video, http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov
And especially for the last five minutes in it. But as long as her friend continues to ignore the minimum requirements in the discussion - that is, to establish a definite position and explain what the connection is between her and the subject in question - I see no point in continuing to argue with him.
Wishing you an interesting and calm weekend,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Shepherding those electrical messages are the closest material expression to consciousness..
After all, we are the creators of the messages. and not the other way around.
Your mind summons your thoughts.
and brings up those associations you chose to remember.
her friends:
I explained to you what you should do.
You must contact the people who appear in the films (you know that these are real people who spoke the truth and not just actors making up a show, so you must know how to find them because otherwise you would have no reason to think that it is not Fibrok) and together you follow the instructions that appear in the link I gave you.
What is so complicated here?
You asked if everyone agrees with Roy's statement that consciousness is not separate from the brain.
The answer is - of course not - you don't agree and so does the one who always pretends to be someone else.
The scientists, however, overwhelmingly agree - as can be seen in the following survey:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
You asked if there is a serious researcher who believes that EVP are just electrostatic voices.
The answer is that all serious researchers think so.
You are welcome to read, for example, here:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.112.4058&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A picture is worth more than a thousand words - this is true in absolute terms - that is, when the value of the words is negative, then the value of the picture is a thousand times negative.
Hugin:
In your response that her friend jumped on her as a source of great loot, you only clarified that your ability to cram a lot of words into zero ideas (an expression of Noam that I happily adopt) is only getting better and better.
For 410, it's a real pleasure to read a smart and to-the-point response,
well done …
Roy,
Regarding the book, I will not deprive you of the right to learn about its contents and its main points, in your own way and at your own time.
In any case, there is a fundamental difference between 'thoughts', the products of the brain's translations, and between 'consciousness', when all is encompassing, or an all-inclusive fabric, which is not a personal thing and alone, but we are all intertwined in him/her and this is indeed the 'Great Spirit', as is the Torah and the teachings of all religions Trying to keep her/him loyal.
The brain has a hermetic ability to 'steal' impressions from the 'consciousness' in many ways and interpret, translate, and even make speculations (creating thoughts) according to its own way, as it is the individual matter of each one according to his characteristics, and also the structure of his unique nerve cells.
Hope we clarified a little, thanks :).
Does everyone agree with Roy's statement that most clinical death researchers believe that consciousness is not separate from the brain??
And regarding your puzzled stubbornness that I explained in my own words what EVP is,
After all, they say: 'A picture is worth a thousand words'
And so he again invited everyone to watch the video, and watch until the end
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3130080
And I'm also a little afraid that I'll say a word out of place and make a big fuss out of it,
And I will ask you: is there any serious researcher who believes that these recordings are just electrostatic sounds????
Hugin,
I have a long reading list ahead of me, and there is still a long time until I get to tell about it you recommend. If you think there are lessons in it that I should learn, I would appreciate it if you would quote a few paragraphs, or tell here about the ideas it conveys.
Either way, you didn't understand what I was saying. The brain consumes oxygen (among other things), and creates thought, through messages transmitted between nerve cells.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Roy,
Read the book 'And today we are not a bride' by Genghis Itemov - Am Oved. Then tell us what consciousness is and whether it is connected, separate or imposed on the brain.
Lately, something in the terminology you use is not clear to me.
It seems to me that Ami Bachar is much more of a biologist than you and loyal to the sources of knowledge and information.
Meanwhile, what is implied from what you say/write in response 106 is: it is the brain that produces oxygen (air-spirit, life and ideas) and not the other way around.
As far as I know, the brain is just a big or small 'nourishment' and an 'interpreter'-interpreter.
Her friends,
If you know of serious researchers who have concluded that consciousness is separate from the brain, I would love to hear about them. But I'll save you the effort - there aren't any. The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the idea for a long time, because all the evidence points in the opposite direction - that consciousness originates in the brain.
But you know, my friend, you are truly an extraordinary person in your demands. You demand that I explain to you in detail about EVP, without links, but refuse to give a single word of your own about the subject, and send me to a video link.
So listen, my friend. I don't argue with a video, and I don't argue with Zamir Cohen. I'm talking to you, at eye level and the screen. If you want to claim that EVP is proof of the existence of the soul, I expect you to explain to me how you deduce that, and what EVP even is. If you can't do even that, then you probably won't understand - or won't bother to read - my answers.
As soon as you decide that you are ready to explain what EVP is, and the connection you make between it and souls, I will be happy to continue the discussion.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
My friend, I asked you:
Why don't you hear voices in the Hebrew language in the clip? Or maybe Yiddish?
I understand why the topic of clinical death is so important to you,
Even if it is said that this is a psychological phenomenon, and that it will prove that there is no soul!?
And there are researchers who studied the phenomenon, and concluded that consciousness is separate from the brain.
Do you know of serious researchers who concluded otherwise??
And regarding the EVP
The clip I brought explains better than I will try to explain,
And everyone is invited to watch it,
And to say that it's just sounds of electrostatic noises is... (not important)
And I'm still waiting for an adequate explanation that is shy of coming,
And to Mr. Michael, I asked, what do you expect me to do to win a million dollars???
Her friends,
I'm still waiting for your answer.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Roy:
EVP is the phenomenon where people with interest interpret electrostatic noises as if they were the voices of the dead.
The subject has been investigated many times and as with other nonsense - its relevance to reincarnation has been ruled out and only the relevance to the self-deception ability of human beings remains
her friends:
When will you start reading what is written to you?
I gave you all the details in response 340 (and you received all the explanations for your difficulties earlier)
Her friends,
I see you continue to avoid the issue of clinical death, and try to divert the subject to newer pastures. If you read my posts again, you will find the answer to the last question as well.
We'll flow with you, and we'll talk about the EVP, and that's where our discussion will end, since I'm already spending way too much time on it that could be used for more productive purposes.
You are waiting for a proper response about the EVP, but you still haven't told us all what the EVP is. Therefore, tell us your theory of what the EVP is, without links, and how the EVP phenomenon proves the existence of the soul.
After you do so, I will be able to respond in a pointed and matter-of-fact manner to your claims.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
And Roy! The point you raised that there is evidence of a Christian meeting Jesus, etc. is worth checking,
And if this is true I would expect the researchers to address it.
And Mr. Michaeli! Give me a detailed plan how I will win a million dollars...
And Roy! who tries to give factual answers, I'm still waiting for an appropriate response regarding EVP
Thanks in advance.
and try to answer briefly according to your understanding (and not just refer to links)
Hugin:
No.
In fact there is proof that he is not in control.
It is a fact that my logic (which is the correct logic) does not control your thoughts.
Is there any proof that your logic is in control Mr. Michaeli?
the stone Age:
There is no logic in Bish Hugin (and the logic that exists in the Stone Age is Bish logic)
Message 11, but who is counting…
For the Stone Age - you made a wise sentence, I enjoyed it.
And Roy - stop rambling too much, about clinical death.
And give a matter-of-fact response, exactly - what is an EVP
And why is this not proof?
The video you brought does not address this.
friends :)
Where there is no soul there is no proof, when there is a soul left behind there are millions of proofs. (period).
Happy holiday: Lag Ba'Omer today for those whose brain fire has forgotten the main thing.
her friends:
are you still here
There is a million dollars waiting for you (or trying to get them waiting for you).
By the way - when you get there (and I'm sure you will - you're not a complete idiot) don't try to show them videos as scientific research because they'll just laugh at you.
Just - for general education - scientific studies are published in the scientific press - not anywhere else (it's a shame that you are humiliated there as you are humiliated here)
Her friends,
After all, you yourself say that people do not create memories that contradict their faith. And we discovered that secular Christians discover Jesus in clinical death, that Muslims discover Muhammad in clinical death and so on. So people definitely create memories that fit their faith (because a secular Jew is still a Jew from the culture in which he grew up).
As I have already stated, the real question is why Christians do not see God without Jesus, or why Muslims see God without Muhammad. If everyone who experienced clinical death saw the God of the Jews, then there was a very strong proof of the correctness of the Torah. So what's the deal with the fact that everyone who dies sees God and the prophet he believes in?
Now let's talk about statistics. You are very excited that thousands have experienced clinical death, but there are billions of people in the world. Statistics from 1982 show that 15% of all Americans who reached a state of clinical death reported an experience along these lines. What about all the other 85 percent? What, they have no soul? Or maybe their brains are simply not damaged in the same way? What do you think is more likely, my friend?
Oh, and you mentioned Zamir Cohen. Tell me, my friend... do you eat falafel every now and then? Because I have falafel X outside the lab (we won't name names), with a big sign - "The best falafel in Israel". Tell me, my friend, would you believe without proof that this is really the best falafel in Israel?
Most likely not, because the owner of the falafel has a clear interest in convincing you to come eat it.
Zamir Cohen, her friend, he repents. I try not to use too strong words, but this man is in the business of converting people's faith with vile rhetoric, and both gross and subtle lies. He, as well as the Hidavorot organization he heads, use the stage given to them to present nonsense and nonsense as science - all to convince that Judaism is true and real.
And do you believe this man? without evidence? No evidence? No names of witnesses? According to the same argument, you are also allowed to believe that Falafel X is indeed the best in Israel. because someone said So he said!
to the last point. You sent me to see a movie about EVP. I seen. Not convincing, not even a dime. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Hidbarot organization translated and distributed this film in particular. Watch the video I'm attaching, especially the last part, and you'll understand why:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov
And I'm glad that you finally admitted that there is no proof of the phenomenon of clinical death, but only a phenomenon that can be explained in a wide variety of ways, and 'soul' is nothing more than an unfounded assumption. Tenth post, but it was worth the wait.
------
my new blog - Another science
Tachles,
Proof of dead spirits or not???
And I didn't understand what trapped spirits were. And what in the world did your reaction come to express!!
I just watched the clip you sent :) True or not, but there is evidence for 'trapped spirits', as seen in this clip.
Brings back a little to the difficult parts in the books of Dante, Shakespeare and many others.
You refuse to accept the simple logic that people don't create memories for themselves that contradict their beliefs,
You ignore that they are describing an experience that is unmatched in the world, that cannot be described in words.
And not one and not two, thousands.
Maybe there is no 'proof' in scientific terms, but there is a phenomenon here that cannot be ignored and easily dismissed as something psychological and move to the agenda,
This phenomenon can be an incentive to investigate the issue very seriously,
and check other phenomena (séance, reincarnation, etc.) related to the subject
Therefore I will ask you to refer to the EVP and not ignore it.
Thanks in advance
In Rabbi Zamir Cohen's lecture, he read a story about a man who experienced clinical death and his spirit wandered in the hospital, at that time his spirit was present during the birth of his friend's wife, and he made a telepathic connection with the baby to reassure her not to cry, the baby replied telepathically that she had a problem with her left hip. Coming back to life after a while, he wanted to check himself and called a friend and suggested that they check his left thigh, and indeed a problem was found there.
It's a story of no religion.
And you probably don't believe it.
And there is no point in me continuing the stories.
I will refer to the videos that will illustrate the existence of the spirit: EVP
: http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3130080
And I will add and say one more thing.
You allowed yourself to call people here derogatory names like 'atoms'. But see what happens when I put you in front of experimentally proven facts, such as the fact that people can create completely imaginary and fabricated memories for themselves. When you realize that this fact can damage your sacred argument - "Why would they lie?" – You immediately decide that it is ridiculous and refuse to accept the idea.
There are certain laws of nature, my friends, that are proven by experiments. Psychological science has long been able to show that people can create memories that did not exist, with a certainty no less than that of gravity. If you call this claim 'ridiculous', then you refuse to accept a basic fact that has been proven in reliable experiments, which have been successfully repeated by various researchers. By the same token, you can call gravity 'ridiculous', but that won't change the fact that it exists and that it works.
Like it or not, people can indeed create snappy memories, voluntarily or involuntarily. And if you refuse to accept this fact, and refuse to accept that it reduces the credibility of your explanation, then we are not the 'atoms' here.
------
my new blog - Another science
Her friends,
You return to the point we have already discussed enough times. The fact that people convince themselves, does not make the matter proven. There are also many records of innocent people in the Middle Ages who believed they saw the Virgin Mary appearing to them and giving them instructions on what to do. So what? Do we have to believe every person who suffers from hallucinations or distorted memories? If so, run and become a Christian!
But if you haven't come to the cross in a hurry yet, it's because you realize for yourself that the only thing you can trust is solid physical evidence. And you did not provide such at any point in the debate.
Last but not least, if your evidence for séances, reincarnations and all the rest, is similar to your 'evidence' for the phenomenon of clinical death (false arguments along the lines of "Why would he lie?!", when it has already been proven many times that humans definitely lie and definitely make mistakes), then There is no point in even starting to talk about it.
Ninth message, still waiting for proof of a spiritual phenomenon behind the clinical death. You haven't provided one yet.
------
my new blog - Another science
One more time to repeat this nonsense: social pressure or self-conviction.
There are testimonies of people like you who did not believe in any spiritual dimension. And because of this experience they were forced to accept the fact that they are a spiritual creature.
Why shouldn't they convince themselves of the things they have believed throughout their lives.
And you build everything on little brain activity that aspires to zero.
After you are frustrated by all the evidence (séance, reincarnation, etc.) it will not be difficult for you to accept this truth either.
The movie you brought is really interesting, even though it doesn't answer any of the questions I raised in the discussion.
For those who did not watch the short video, there is a report about a joint study between a doctor and a neuroscientist, which reveals that brain activity in the case of a cardiac arrest stops -=almost completely=- within eight seconds. That's the whole video, actually.
What it means? Apparently the information can indicate that if brain activity has stopped, but people still experience a spiritual experience of clinical death, then there is a soul beyond the brain. But let's look at the evidence:
1. Eight seconds is not a long time, but time is a relative concept. From descriptions of people who have experienced traumatic events, we know that the sense of time for them 'creeps'. They think faster and react faster. It is certainly possible that in the eight seconds until the complete shutdown of the brain, the patient receives very confused messages from the brain.
2. Pay attention to an interesting point, which the neuroscientist talks about: "We stop receiving brain waves almost completely" (in the Hebrew translation the 'almost' was omitted, for an unknown reason). what is almost Is there still little activity? Are there still centers active at a minimum? We don't know, and it seems the neuroscientist doesn't either. But almost - this activity can explain a lot.
3. The saddest part of this entire video is that it cannot answer any of the questions I raised. Even if the brain activity had stopped completely (which it did not, according to the video itself), the patients could still create new memories as a result of social pressure or self-persuasion. So no, there is no "unequivocal proof that consciousness is separate from the brain", as you are trying to claim.
So there is no proof here of the existence of a soul or the existence of a spiritual phenomenon that stands behind the clinical death. I'm still waiting for that one. eighth message
------
my new blog - Another science
After all, you have a scientific study on the subject
Clinical death that proves unequivocally that consciousness is separate from the brain
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3073029
The story of the blind from birth is very impressive, and does not match your narrow explanations
And in general, those who delay after all the reports on this topic get a different impression than what you are trying to paint,
And Judaism does not hold that those who are not Jews are destined for hell,
And a gentile who fulfills the seven commandments of the sons of Noah has a place in the world to come.
After all, neither side has proof...
And it's good that this is the case, otherwise one side would have destroyed the other a long time ago...
Come on, you've dug enough here.
NOTHING TO SEE MOVE ALONG….. 😀
Or, of course, to admit that there is currently not enough evidence to support the spiritual phenomenon behind clinical death. I have a lot of respect for those who are willing to look the data in the eye, and say "I was wrong". Once you prove to me that you actually read what I'm saying and think things through, we can move on to discussing the other issues.
------
my new blog - Another science
Seventh message - and you still haven't provided proof.
Tell me, my friend. If you asked me to prove to you that God does not exist, and I would say, "Well, no problem." God is just ridiculous.”
Was this proof in your eyes?
That's all you've said so far, in one word or another.
So let's summarize the discussion:
1. I came to know that there are many people who describe Jesus, Muhammad and the Buddhas in their clinical death, and not only the Jewish God.
Your answer: they are wrong, we are right. They imagine, but the Jews who experience clinical death, see the real thing. (Well, how do you know? After all, this is exactly what the other religious people say to their believers!)
2. I explained to you that people tend to create memories actively, and as evidence I brought two studies that showed how people create memories of being abducted by aliens and believe in them, even though they have never been abducted. I also explained to you that social pressure can cause a similar phenomenon, and such social pressure exists in every case of clinical death.
Your answer: This is ridiculous. (It's good that you refer to the point and bring concrete and logical arguments)
3. I showed you that the brain can create sensations of levitation and even of awe under specific physical stimuli, although it has been proven that this sensation of levitation is completely imaginary, and that man cannot, for example, see behind his back.
Your answer: "In any case, on the topic of clinical death I have nothing to add."
So who's dodging here, my friend?
And again, I am waiting for proof from you (already the seventh message) that there is a spiritual phenomenon in clinical death, which cannot be explained through physical and physical mechanisms. Once you give me such proof, we'll move on. But first you have to show me that there is anyone to talk to at all. You came up with an idea - now give me evidence for it. It's an alphabet of discussions.
------
my new blog - Another science
Explaining the clinical phenomenon of death of thousands of Gentiles and Jews who have common descriptions as a physical phenomenon is ridiculous, this phenomenon is proof of the existence of the soul.
And none of this proves the correctness of this or that religion.
And not because of the questions about someone who tells about Jesus (which in itself is not clear if he is telling the truth) we conclude that this phenomenon comes from social influence or hypnosis or any other ridiculous explanation.
In any case, on the subject of clinical death, I have nothing to add,
And now please don't dodge and reply to other proofs.
Her friends,
You are the one who builds buildings from 'some report of a Jew who met God', and make a movie around it. . Why do you complain that there are also cases in which gentiles meet Jesus at the time of clinical death?
You require me to address all the other spiritual phenomena you brought up. But let's break the topic down into small, easy-to-swallow parts. After all, I already explained to you the matter of clinical death, and you did not find an adequate answer to the issues I raised. Nor did you provide your own evidence as I requested. So now you want to move on to ghosts, séances, cognizant autistics and sixty, seventh and eighth senses as well?
Slow down, my friend. You have made a certain assertion about clinical death, and you must stand by it, for better or for worse. Until now you have not been able to back up the matter with real arguments, but you continue to insist, with answers along the lines of "absolutely not true" and "you build buildings". Do these seem to you to be serious answers, appropriate for a discussion aimed at reaching the depth of the truth?
If you admit that you have no real proof of the existence of spiritual phenomena at the time of clinical death (and by that I mean the existence of a phenomenon that cannot be explained in a physical and physical way, relying on the brain), I would be happy to move with you to other spiritual phenomena as well. If you don't do that, then I have no interest in having a discussion with a 'speaker', who only repeats other people's words, and doesn't think things through for himself.
Oh, and you still haven't provided me with a single piece of evidence that clinical death memories cannot be interpreted as a purely physical phenomenon. And this is already the sixth message.
As usual, the glove is in your hands.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
In a wrong interpretation, they were not persuaded by society, and you build buildings from some report of a gentile who met Jesus,
And in most of the cases the Gentiles speak only of a spiritual being.
And you again reduce the discussion to the issue of clinical death,
And you didn't refer to pictures of ghosts.
You didn't refer to the seance,
And you didn't refer to the autistic people who will tell you the future.
And if we talk about sixth sense, then there is a video about ESP
Her friends,
You are once again meandering with the Torah and the different religions. Doesn't it hurt to squeeze through such narrow and cramped logic holes? Torat Israel asserts a very simple thing: we are right, and they are wrong. So are all other religions. The Christians go one step further and declare that either you are with them - or you are in hell. There is no zero. And yet, many people who describe clinical death say that they actually met the God in whom they believe, and not other gods. Doesn't that seem strange to you? Wouldn't you expect that if only the God of the Bible existed, He would also speak to some Gentiles when they experienced clinical death? Why should he convince Gentiles that there is Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddhas, by the fact that he appears in front of them?
But you know what? If you are ready to twist like diarrhea, to say that white is black and black is white, that the God of Judaism is not a single God (as the Rambam says, and anyone who says otherwise, Yahuu 'chops the trees and destroys the vineyards'), and in general to violate all the tenets of Judaism - Nicha.
Let's move on with the ridiculousness parade.
Most people who describe a mystical experience of clinical death have not been hypnotized. But all of them, without exception, were persuaded by society. The very fact that today, everyone who comes out of clinical death is asked by those around them the question - "Well, what did you see?" It is proof that there is an environmental pressure that makes people think again and again about what they saw, and update their memories accordingly.
As for the fact that these are secular people, regardless of the 'hard' religious Judaism - it has nothing to do with it. Every secular person knows that he is also Jewish, and connects to tradition and religion. A much better proof would be if all the Gentiles who enter clinical death, would describe that they met God, and He explained to them that they needed to convert. But the fact is that the Gentiles see Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddhas... No one sees the God of the Jews, not even remotely. So it turns out that the whole phenomenon is a social phenomenon - everyone sees what they want to see and what they are expected to see, depending on the society in which they grew up. And you still haven't been able to disprove that.
Last but not least, we return to the matter of electrodes. If the subject of the experiment (the person on whom the electrodes are applied) could indeed see things behind his back, then this would be a very strong proof of the existence of another sense - perhaps even the soul. But the researchers who conducted the study specifically examined this matter as well, and showed unequivocally that that person could not see what was behind his back. I mean, he just felt like he was floating, but he didn't really see anything around.
It should be added that not a single piece of evidence has yet been received that people who experience clinical death do know what happened in the next room, for example. There are those who manage to understand what happened around them (I had a heart attack? The doctor who saved me?), and this is not surprising, because the brain is still partially active in some cases and can hear and maybe even see what is happening around. You also don't need to be a great genius to understand that you had a heart attack, and that the woman in the white coat standing next to you is the doctor who saved you. From here it's all a matter of memory inventing itself.
But still not one solid evidence has been found that the 'soul' manages to see what is happening in the next room. In other words, there is still no proof that the soul leaves in clinical death.
So what's going on, my friend? So far I have given you an answer to every question, and I am still waiting for you to bring me one proof that the memories of clinical death cannot be interpreted as a purely physical phenomenon. Waiting, and waiting for almost five messages. Do you have any such proof, or is it possible to sign the discussion and go home, after you have already managed to sabotage most of the principles of Judaism, and explain how each and every gentile gets its own heaven with its own private God?
------
my new blog - Another science
The next world is not a place you arrive at, but it is the real being, in this world you have the opportunity to buy tools that you can enjoy there, for example, imagine if you were asked what tools you want for this world, you would say a healthy body, money, etc.
And as you understand there is a difference in enjoyment between the blind and the non-blind
Thus there is a difference between those who observe the Torah who bought tools to enjoy that world, and those who do not observe the Torah. And so there is a difference between Gentile and Israel.
Regarding the clinical experience of death, you claim that all the people from all over the world, thousands of people who all describe the same process, all underwent hypnosis, or persuasion from society. I told you that the videos show cases of secular people who had nothing to do with Judaism
What you were talking about electrodes, that's exactly the point that in this way you can separate the body from the mind, think logically how it comes from the brain if I see myself from the outside and tell you what exactly everyone was doing in the room???
Her friends,
Let's start with 4. You assume that the story about Jesus is true. You are basically saying that every religion has its own heaven. Do you have proof of this? reference? After all, every religion claims exactly the opposite - that it is the only correct one and that all others are infidels! So is it to strengthen your faith, are you now an apostate mainly and in the principles of Judaism? Are you willing to argue that there is more than one, for example? Or is there no god at all, as the Buddhists claim? Don't you feel that you are getting into a bit too much trouble here, trying to explain a phenomenon that is incompatible with any of the religions?
Let's continue with the second question. The fact that everyone describes the same process (darkness, light coming on slowly, a feeling of 'something unimaginably large') - actually fits the idea that it is a brain injury resulting from a lack of oxygen. Similar descriptions are received from drowning people, when areas of the brain 'turn off' one by one. In addition, there is scientific evidence that it is possible to stimulate the brain using electrical electrodes, so that the person feels as if he is floating in the air and sees his body from above. So again - everything comes from the mind, not from the soul.
Let's continue!
3. Contrary to what many people think, memory is a very dynamic and changing thing. Pay attention, for example, to the following case description by Carl Sagan, and you can understand how easy it is to make people remember things that were not and were not created:
"In a study conducted by Alvin Lawson of California State University at Long Beach, eight subjects - who were first screened to eliminate UFO believers - were hypnotized by a doctor, and were told that they had been abducted, taken into a spaceship and examined. Without any further prompting, they were asked to describe the experience. Their descriptions, which were accepted very easily in most cases, were almost completely identical to the descriptions presented by the abductees-in their own words. [People who complain about being abducted by UFOs]”
I mean, it turns out that it's easy to convince people that they've had experiences that didn't exist and weren't created, especially under phenosis. But you don't have to panic. Phenosis is just a state of heightened attention. There are people who have a strong tendency to hypnosis - that is, they spend most of their lives in a state of mild hypnosis, with a tendency to believe everything they are told. And to prove:
"Psychiatrist George Gannaway... once informed a subject, who had a strong tendency to forget, that five hours were missing from her memory on a certain day. He added and talked about a strong light emanating from above, and she immediately told him about UFOs and extraterrestrials. When he claimed to her that experiments had been done on her, a detailed kidnapping story immediately developed."
These studies join many others, in which psychologists and psychiatrists 'changed' people's memories, simply by hinting in the right direction. They made people remember being lost at the beach when they were little (an event that never happened or was created), there was a stop sign in a car accident movie, and so on.
So, my friends - give me even one piece of proof that the moving accounts (which are genuinely moving) of those people who have experienced clinical death, are clearly and undeniably true. can you do that Can you assure me without hesitation, that this is not a 'forced' memory, that those people developed because society expects them to experience it?
If you cannot provide such proof, then you also have no proof of the existence of clinical death.
And last but not least - you ask why we concentrate only on the subject of clinical death. The simple answer is that in every field you have raised, there are dozens of pages of online discussions and plenty of information. I, unfortunately, have limited time and can only concentrate on one subject. I can only assure you that if you search the net, you will find many more refutations to all the above topics. You just have to search, and at least on the topic of autistics you have already been linked to at least one article on the science website.
------
my new blog - Another science
The videos that are brought do not serve any religion. They only come to show that there is a spiritual dimension in man.
Why is only the issue of clinical death a challenge, and not EVP, not a séance, not reincarnation, not images of spirits, not communicating with autistic people, and not haunted houses.
Regarding Kenny's death: 1. There is a video that science unequivocally confirms is not from the brain I brought it earlier
2. How is it possible that everyone describes the same process: darkness, a tunnel, supreme pleasure, telepathic communication with divine womanhood.
3. And regarding the reliability of the videos, well, for example, the story of Rachel Noam, who grew up in Kibbutz Hashomer Hatzair at the age of 22, experienced clinical death, she did not understand what happened until she came across a prayer arrangement. Think for a moment why she should lie and repent, tell me which is easier to be secular or religious...
4. Regarding the clinical death of the Christian who tells about Jesus, I know if the story is true, but even if we assume it is true, I said the next world of a Gentile is not the same next world of a Jew, a Jew has 613 commandments and a Gentile has only 7 commandments, and it is not for nothing , this is because the soul of a Jew belongs to a higher spiritual dimension, and therefore must be more refined with many mitzvos,
So it is possible that Jesus is suitable for a Gentile (and again this is a hypothesis)
And why is this supposed to lead to anti-Semitism, even a gentile if he wants to can convert and win and elevate himself to that next world of a Jew,
But unfortunately there are Jews who are not interested in mitzvot, so what is there to talk about gentiles
Sorry, Joker - I didn't notice that you were quoting Roy and only adding RL.
Please make sure to add a smiley in such cases so that I understand too 🙂
Joker:
If the weakling had read the article to which I directed him, he would also have found this response of mine:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/#comment-164883
In the last paragraph the things you said appear
Something else
To all those who rub their hands with pleasure over the easy prey - superheroes for the weak!
To Roy Cezana
...and it is known that disruption of brain activity can also cause severe hallucinations and unusual sensations. It is even known that there are areas in the human mind that can make him feel reverence and holiness.
You forgot to add: ..to make him feel awe and holiness, RL!
her friends:
Just don't get confused and think that they are trying to convince you.
No one here will waste their time trying to convince you because everyone knows that if you were telling the truth you wouldn't have any reason to stay here and talk.
True - even then you might have ignored the fact that they gave exhaustive answers to all your questions, but you wouldn't even bother to lie and say they didn't - you would just go to Randy's, come back with a million dollars and tell us all "I told you so?!".
But you don't do that because you don't speak the truth and the whole debate going on here takes place (on our part) only to save innocent people who may be tempted to believe your lies (as on your part it is only conducted to bring down those innocent people in the network of denial in which you got entangled).
Avi,
The situation is even worse than this, because a quick look at most religions in the world shows that each religion claims that the souls of its believers come from a higher source.
How, then, do we know whom to believe? If each of the religions states that the other religions are wrong, and it is the only righteous religion - what is the truth? And how can it be that billions of people around the world believe, each and every one, that his soul is worth more than the souls of the members of the other religion, when they rely on the evidence provided by Yedidia, of idol magicians and fabricated videos?
Her friend!
Priests of every religion in the world provide finger-picked videos and testimonies that promote the despicable idea that the souls of believers are worth more than those of other human beings. For every video that the Jewish converts can come up with, I can provide you with a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist video that says the souls see Muhammad, Jesus or one of the Buddhas.
But be careful, my friend. Each of the religions claims that the others are wrong, and that it is right. If so, how is it possible that members of any religion see their own personal Messiah? After all, even if one of the messiahs existed and was valid, then all the other messiahs should not have existed!
If so, is it possible that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than a psychological and physiological illusion, caused as a result of the effect of clinical death on our minds? After all, studies have already been done showing that brain damage is caused in clinical death, and it is known that disruption of brain activity can also cause severe hallucinations and unusual sensations. It is even known that there are areas in the human mind that can make him feel reverence and holiness.
Her friend! You challenged us to explain how we ignore the issue of clinical death and the soul. I have explained the issue to you, and now I await your own answer: can you disprove the fact that the brain affects consciousness, and that damage to the brain can cause hallucinations in a state of clinical death?
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Her friends,
I find it hard to believe that any of the readers think you speak for all of Judaism. Nor was there any dispute between us about the conversion of the Gentiles. The question was simple, and I ask that you stop dodging and give a simple answer:
Do you, as a Jew, believe the reports of the atheist Americans who went into clinical death and saw the Christian Jesus? And if you don't believe them, why do you expect us to believe Jews who entered clinical death and claim to have come before the throne of honor?
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
My friends, we as Jews - also secular - and certainly as Israelis struggle with anti-Semitism and here you are here as Jews expressing support for their argument that we consider ourselves superior to them. After all, this was the excuse of the anti-Semites for generations and you, perhaps without meaning to, play into their hands when you state that the Jewish soul is of a higher origin.
As mentioned, I am not qualified to speak on behalf of Judaism. But I will offer to say something
Judaism has no interest in wrongdoers being provoked.
As far as Judaism is concerned, seven commandments of Noah's sons are imposed on a Gentile, no more.
Perhaps from the point of view of Judaism, the gentile can remain a Christian (if we assume that it is not defined as paganism)
In any case, know that the messages that the autists bring from the world of truth are only for the Jews, and not for the Gentiles.
Because the soul of the Jew is from a higher source.
Her friends,
I asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered. I will ask again: How can Judaism be true, if the dying souls see the Christian Jesus and talk to him?
I will ask another question, which may be easier to answer: Do you, as a Jew, believe the accounts of secular atheist Americans who saw the Christian Jesus when they were in a state of clinical death?
Please think about the questions I asked, and answer them honestly.
Thanks,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Well father, you finally came to the conclusion that there are things you don't understand.
And Michael, I am qualified to speak on behalf of Judaism. And we are not in the Judaism section, but under the article 'If Darwinism needs protection', and again there are real things that you are not ready to accept, that clearly show that there is a soul, and as mentioned, this disproves evolution.
Soon I will bring a video about the famous possession from Dimona, there is a chilling recording of when Rabbi Betzi asks him to leave, and her husband answers (the possession) that there are angels of destruction waiting for him to beat him.
And when Rabbi Betzi asks him why? He replies because he profaned Shabbat.
I suggest you not to say 'nonsense' 'imagination' style. Because I personally know it's real.
And with tape there is nothing to argue about.
her friends:
There is no explanation for many other things that never happened.
There is also no explanation for the phenomena described in the Harry Potter films.
I again suggest to you - take these companies that do what cannot be done - bring them to James Randi and you can both help them financially and get rich yourself.
The claim that you didn't talk about Judaism is evading an answer. Do you believe that the people that Roy pointed to actually met Jesus?
From all these things I actually understood one thing why she tells a secular mother to repent. It does this through the mediation of all kinds of religious people who have an interest in as many secular people as possible repenting.
Have you read the article on the communication of the autistic? The way in all cases is similar - to claim the ability and then fail to prove it.
1. I wasn't talking about Judaism, I just said that there is a soul.
2. No one explains how Galia (brain-damaged) answers her mother (via communication) in order to all the questions she prepared on the list she forgot in the file, there is no explanation of how she knows who is going to come to visit, and why she suddenly tells a secular mother to repent.
3. There is no explanation for the images of dead spirits captured on camera.
4. There is no explanation as to how in seances there are cases where the glass moves by itself, and all kinds of details that the spirits reveal about the future against all logic that in the end come true (the movie seances in the army) or reveal to them who stole the jeans.
5. There is no explanation as to how a Druze boy recounts in detail his past as a border guard soldier, to whom he was married, and who his child is and where his personal belongings are,
Science simply prefers to ignore all of this because then we would have to throw out the theory of evolution,
And of course that's out of the question for them,
Because then we will have to accept the simple fact that we are a spiritual creation that God created.
her friends:
You probably don't even understand what you're reading.
I gave you two links.
The one for my article that proves that the rest of the soul is not possible even in principle.
The second is Schermer's which explains all the phenomena you talked about (an explanation that in my opinion is not necessary for a thinking person, but in your understanding it is necessary)
Other important links, describing the experiences of secular Americans and atheists (!!) who experienced clinical death and saw the Christian Jesus:
http://bibleprobe.com/hells-dominion.htm
http://bibleprobe.com/gerard.htm
http://bibleprobe.com/valvita.htm
------
my new blog - Another science
Her friends,
Please read the following link, in which a young American describes how he experienced clinical death, and how his soul ascended to heaven, where he met the Christian Jesus:
http://www.klinickasmrt.cz/en/osobni-prozitek.php
Can you explain to me how Judaism can be correct, when we have record (from a secular American, who certainly has no reason to lie) of the existence and divine nature of Jesus?
Thanks,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
I did read Michael Rothschild's article,
And he doesn't give answers to the stories in the videos,
It's a shame you don't bother to look at the videos I directed you to.
You simply state that they are imagining or all kinds of forced explanations,
Ask yourself, what can secular people imagine about such things!!!
It is possible that you have a strong psychological pressure to adhere to disbelief in the Creator and to suppress the qualms of conscience
on the transgressions of the Torah.
her friends:
You have exposed yourself as one who does not even bother to read what is being explained to him.
And you still claim that others are sealed!
Curious doesn't take anything for granted,
They too are spiritual like a soul.
To know how science answers this.
You simply stopped asking questions and chose the soul as an axiom.
You don't care how. You were busy with a problem and your faith answers it for you in its own way.
No problem with that, but you have a problem with people asking how.
Because it undermines your reason...
You exposed yourselves as atoms,
And you are not open to accepting simple things.
It's just that a person has a soul
And this is the biggest refutation of your evolution
We are an electric storm….creators of realities and quantum experimenters.
I personally think and regardless of the discussion
It's a paradox to know how you work.
Because the sum is not the sum of the parts
It is not possible to conclude from this and vice versa.
I, that is the sum, will never be able to know the total of all parts.
I just noticed another gem on Randy's site:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/pigasus-awards.html
This reminds me of the story about the host of the evening who stands on the stage and calls out to the audience:
"Everyone who believes in telekinesis - raise my hand!"
(This is not a typo 🙂 )
Friends, I myself participated in all the recordings and edited the sound.
It was basically a psychological experiment we did to test how idiotic people are.
her friends:
Not true.
Every time the theme is tested it is revealed as a fibrok.
I tell you again: Randy's prize has been waiting for scumbags like you for over forty years.
You better hurry to take it because as far as I remembered the prize offer expires in 2010
You probably can't take in a lot of information at once
So let's break it down into parts
beginning:
EVP is a scientifically reviewed recording of dead voices.
Have you shown anyone who disagrees with this?????
Listen to the video until the end, and you will hear creepy things.
I believe most of the stories…
My friends, first of all you must understand that statistically 'miracles' must be called...
Write an article about it on this website once...
Even I once had a dream that came true...
I really believe in a woman who saw herself and her wedding ring... but I'm also sure there's an explanation for it like: she thought about the ring a lot and probably in the end she'll also dream about it... it happens to me a lot...
Besides, you must also take into account that there are many charlatans who all they want is a heart node or money...
In short, what I'm trying to say is that everything has an explanation, and even if there isn't, that doesn't mean it's natural, but that you have to look for the natural explanation because that's all there is...
If you want, the world was created full of wonders and miracles in a natural way and is just waiting for us to discover the beauty in them (so if you are looking for metaphysics, you will study physics and see how strange nature is or you will study biology and understand how wonderful the living body is)...
In my opinion, you should satisfy your curiosity by researching and not believe every video you see. You don't have to believe the scientists either, go explore the truth yourself, it's not easy but it's definitely worth it!
her friends:
After all, you have already received the answer to your claims in the past (response 336), but you just insist, ignore the answer, and wag.
Now the rocking is a request for an appropriate response.
Please my friend - I will continue to hit you as much as you want.
Is there anyone willing to give an appropriate response????
her friends:
The fact that there are famous stories does not make the stories true and does not make drawing stupid conclusions a smart thing.
I'm sorry for the time I spend chatting with you. If you have something real - go and earn a million dollars. Otherwise - stop yelling.
Regarding autistics, think for a moment how they know things that are going to happen with you, (you can make an appointment).
Regarding clinical death, there is a very interesting case where a congenital deformity saw herself and her wedding ring for the first time.
Regarding reincarnation, there is a very famous story about a Druze named 'Adiv'.
There are also images of dead spirits captured on camera.
You have an interview with a psychic named Maayan Agam about séances she conducted, and she testifies as a secularist
that the spirit asked that they say 'Kaddish' over her.
Please stop saying I am relying on hearsay you have the videos in the links I provided above.
It seems that you choose to ignore, and rely on rumors that there are supposedly scientific explanations for all these phenomena.
her friends:
There is no scientific proof of the soul remaining even though there are people like you who constantly claim it and rely on each other in their claims.
I have no doubt that anyone who is enough of an idiot will see even a dog's barking as evidence of reincarnation, but a serious person will read the logical explanations for all these phenomena before accusing others of ignoring them.
By now you know that James Randi has offered a million dollar reward to anyone who can prove the existence of reincarnation or any other supernatural phenomenon.
This is an award that was offered more than forty years ago and no one has yet taken it.
If you have proof, I suggest you run there and get rich:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Her friend, topic The communication of the autistic investigated also investigated. He is an excellent example of how you can take a scientific practice, even though it was controversial from the beginning until it was proven wrong and abandoned) and make a soup out of it.
Is there someone serious who can answer not only about the studies I mentioned above but also about the séance phenomenon that communicates with the deceased,
There is also communication with autistic people who reveal to you what is going to happen to you in the near future,
Doesn't this come from the spiritual dimension in man,
Why ignore it??
There are some videos that clearly show: 1. Clinical death research that concludes that consciousness is separate from the brain. 2. Research on reincarnation. 3. EVP.
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/myPage.asp?id=3068888
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/myPage.asp?id=3068888&v=2#videos
her friends:
In another debate taking place at the same time, I argued that a vast majority of the religious who express themselves on the site are willing to lie in order to convince of the correctness of their beliefs.
I thank you for taking the trouble to provide me with a living example immediately.
No research - neither on the subject of clinical death nor on any other subject - has proven the existence of the soul.
Moreover - as I wrote here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/
We have every reason to believe that the soul does not exist as an entity separate from the body.
In addition to the reasons I mentioned in the article, which I think really proves that there is no soul separate from the body, you can read in the following link http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html
What does science think about the experiments on clinical death or any other topics you would like to raise.
Her friends,
I will try to answer your questions in as much detail as I can:
1) No
2) No
3) I ate, went to school and got up - I'm doing pretty well...
Shabbat Shalom!
A question for those who think that God did not create man,
Do you believe that there is no spiritual dimension in man (soul)
If you think he didn't pick up studies on clinical death, and on reincarnation, prove unequivocally that the soul does exist.
How is it going for you???
age:
And in relation to the basis of "the good".
It is easy to explain it through evolution and there is no need for God for that.
On the contrary: all the claims about the existence of God make great efforts to brainwash people by claiming that the feeling of "goodness" that evolution instilled in them is a lie and that the true goodness is the observance of religious commandments - even if they completely contradict what we feel is "good".
This is the reason why our father Abraham is a hero of Judaism when any sane person would see a madman who banishes his wife and son to dry in the desert and then is ready to slaughter his other son exactly what he is.
All the preachers of the religion know very well how to take advantage of the fact that we all know that murder is bad even without the religion to come and claim to us "Look! This is the religion that gave us 'thou shalt not kill'. ".
This argument wouldn't work if we didn't know in advance that murder is bad, but most people are stupid and the argument works for them anyway.
age:
I'm sorry but I just don't get what you're saying.
I cannot change the laws of logic by force of will. I don't think anyone can, although people do manage to neutralize the logic component when making certain decisions.
I know that not everyone is even aware that they are doing this, but it seems to me that if you come to any person and ask him if he believes in the validity of this or that logical axiom - without tying the question to any claim in which he may have an interest - he will always tell you that he does in an axiom.
In my opinion, without using these axioms and believing in their validity you would not even be able to decipher my words.
Eyal A.
I don't know about others but I don't lie to myself even for a moment. Never!
It seems to me that in the journey to reason it appears..
There is a catalog (and I don't remember exactly) of civilizations and we still 0 have discovered the atomic power but we have not harnessed it and we use two of its side effects no more..
But we are beginning to understand what the higher levels are…
But the road is long..
Now don't say that a high-level entity can be considered a god, one that harnesses the forces of galaxies and has Dyson balls galore. And exists as clean energy. (For us it is still integrated with the body)
God as I perceive not at all in the catalog 🙂
He is the basis of the good which is the basis in the end.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Michael:
I won't get into an argument, I don't really have a side in it, but I will draw your attention to this-
We humans, including you, lie to ourselves constantly. Everyone "chooses" to deceive themselves and feed themselves illusions, even unconsciously..sorry-mostly unconsciously. In the case of people like you (and I was one of them until recently) it always happens unconsciously. It is a psychological matter, based on our need to justify our actions and thoughts. There are many reasons for this and many examples can be given.
Bottom line, remember one thing (which I'm sure you know): nothing is XNUMX percent certain. Any theory, no matter how well-founded, can be completely or partially refuted from the moment of its formulation until...the moment of its refutation.
The choice is actually one of the basic things we have.
Everything is a choice.
And I understand that it is indeed the most difficult, but your logic is subject to you and only you in the end. and therefore subject to change. is a collection of your choices.
Like everything else that makes you an individual.
That is why there is no absolute "logic" and that is what science takes care of among other things.
And faith is also individual and the "absolute" faith cares
the religion
But the choice is still yours on where to place yourself.
age:
Indeed, according to the Bible, for 5770 years they did not think about it at all, even though already millions of years ago they made tools and more than 15000 years ago they painted on the walls.
The truth is that I simply cannot understand how one can *choose* to believe in something.
For me personally, beliefs are not chosen. Oh forced upon me by logic.
Unbelievable how much debate and about what?
Time in your universe is not linear... the story of creation is condensed into a story that a person who lived 5769 years ago could understand.
5769 years ago, that's a lot, a lot, a lot, a long time ago, they didn't think about quantum and descriptive encryption, about strings, and Comis swelling, and molecular biology, and botanical chemistry, and marine engineering, and anaerobic respiration...
Everything fits together……but only if you choose.
The world is much more wonderful that way.
Wait both 40 years and 400, as Copernicus' theory has survived to this day and no one claims that the sun revolves around the earth (except the astrologers who are interested), so no one can tattoo evolution. If billions of proofs are not enough for you and seem like a religion to you, you probably belong on other sites. Enjoy them.
See?!
To Avi-Or-N-Michael-El
Science becomes a religion when bloated scientists are impatient, - set rules for a theory like evolution! - I am ready to apologize for being flexible and not in a hurry to close corners
Let's imitate another 20 years, maybe there will be other discoveries - why are you building and locking on one theory!
As for religion, someone has already said that Jesus will reappear for Israel to apologize to the Christians
I ask for peace and forgiveness for quarrels that contribute nothing to me!
Pine:
I do fight trolls, but only when I recognize an element in them that nevertheless relates - even if only slightly - to what was said to it.
Such trolls can:
1. At best to convince
2. In the worst case it is better to convince that the continuation of the debate is harmful to the advancement of his claims
3. In the worst case insult until he shuts up.
The problem is that Shaika seems to me completely transparent to arguments. Everything passes through it without leaving anything inside - the chance that something we say will affect it seems to me lower than the chance that a neutrino particle will collide with a particle of a sheet of paper.
Perhaps it is made of the mental equivalent of dark matter.
This is why this time I am trying to dissuade you from continuing the argument.
Just to point out, before I implement Michael's request, maybe you'll apologize for your argument that science is religion
.
No one does missionary work for Darwin, since when is telling the truth missionary work? Don't you know that missionaries of religions, cults, etc. always but always lie?
Michael,
I am aware of that. After all, I'm one of those who keep warning you not to respond to trolls, that it won't help. But what to do - sometimes the stupidity goes beyond all limits and it ticks me off.
I can help myself when I see them expounding their nonsense and beliefs for fun. But when they distort science, and further distort it to fit their own beliefs, it starts to "upset" me (to say the least).
They have no respect for people who have really invested their lives to contribute to their children's knowledge and quality of life.
What I was trying to say - even when you know there is a troll in front of you, and there is a big sign next to it that says "Do not feed the troll", this will not always prevent you from throwing food at him (hoping that he will choke on it, maybe even... 🙂 Just don't let them interpret that I don't like animals) .
I happen = I see*
(Just the horrors of your delusional comments made me write with too much emotion... and too many spelling mistakes)
Pine:
When I said "Lake of the Bears" I did so because I wanted to joke about Yod's thorn.
In doing so, I compromised a bit on what I really wanted to write, but now I can already do it and even gain an extra dimension to the joke.
What I wanted to write was of course "the swan's egg".
Sheika just won't shut up. He doesn't pay attention to what he is told and all he wants to do is what trolls always do - screw our brains.
There is no way out of this drowning swan's egg because it is much easier to chatter than to write serious things and therefore it is much easier for him than for you.
If I were my father I would block him.
sheika,
I happen to keep talking about things you don't understand at all.
"Evolution failed when it created a world without mistakes"?!
vice versa! Evolution advocates that there is no master planner, therefore development is full of mistakes and dead ends (hence the various extinct species).
Evolution is actually based on the fact that there must be imperfect creatures otherwise why would species become extinct while others continue to exist? And why do those that continue to exist continue to evolve?
The different beliefs are the ones that bring us the delusional idea that God or any other being created everything as it is - perfect and "in his image", etc.
And stop distorting the quantum theory and my words.
"Kik can exist - and not exist - the theory says
that he passes through another dimension that we still do not have access to" - stop talking nonsense. In contrast to you, I understand quanta and studied (in an academic institution) its content. And the quantum theory says no such thing. It is clear that you are gathering pieces of information from all sorts of places and coming up with your own theory in your head. (The idea of a particle passing through other dimensions is only for a specific particle that is allegedly thought to be responsible for gravity - and it is not related to quanta directly. Or are you talking about string theory?). The fact that you do not understand (and obviously you have not studied anywhere) the quantum theory, does not give you the right to distort its content. Why are you unable to admit, if not to us then to yourself, because you do not understand what you are talking about. I am able to do it - this is part of the reason why I study and am attracted to science - to learn. Do not "quote" terms you do not know.
The very fact that you continue to utter and speak nonsense only in your heart and makes you present yourself in a ridiculous way - especially for someone who has a bit of understanding in the fields from which you are allegedly "quoting".
To pine
This world is perceived in my mind as quite trial and error and most things we learn from mistakes.
Evolution failed when it created a world without mistakes - imagine a world without mistakes - everything is true
This would change the world beyond recognition - as for quantum theory, a particle cannot be observed
Without changing its place - as for the claim that a particle can exist - and not exist - the theory says
that he passes through another dimension that we still don't have access to - as for God, he gets along without you
And you are allowed to do missionary activity for Darwin - history has shown that there is always something new!!!
To you to be patient and imitate new discoveries.
To pine
This world is perceived in my mind as quite trial and error and most things we learn from mistakes.
Evolution failed when it created a world without mistakes - imagine a world without mistakes - everything is true
This would change the world beyond recognition - as for quantum theory, a particle cannot be observed
Without changing its place - as for the claim that a particle can exist - and not exist - the theory says
that he passes through another dimension that we still don't have access to - as for God, he gets along without you
And you are allowed to do missionary activity for Darwin - history has shown that there is always something new!!!
To you to be patient and imitate new discoveries.
sheika,
Where did you interpret the quantum theory that says "a particle exists and does not exist"?!
Quantum theory talks about probability in the position of a particle and combines Einstein's theory in which the particle also behaves as a wave.
According to quantum theory there is no God, and we are still talking about the theory of probability, this means a lot...
Don't get over what you don't understand, and certainly don't interpret the Kontim theory as if it were another verse in the Torah - in science there is no room for interpretation so that it fits the faith.
And it's funny how you seem to be trying to appeal to the "religious" side of Michael by "interpreting" his name and emphasizing the word "God" that is hidden in it.
Shika:
Once - many years ago - at the graduation ceremony of one of my children at school I appeared together with several other fathers in the Hetoli performance of the dance "Swan Lake" but now I'm older and the dance you're trying to drag me to is "Swan Lake" so I'm sorry - no I will join (because of iodine's sting)
to Michael
God is eternal and it must be assumed that matter and energy - according to quantum theory - a particle can be
Exists and does not exist - even before you ask me to prove God's existence - you had a very hard time proving your existence - God forbid, maybe you or I no longer exist - and all this is nothing more than thoughts?
In conclusion, God can exist, and not exist according to the theory of the quanets.
For the attention of the science commenters
I am about to give a lecture on evolution and creationism, and as part of this I will also present the short film "The Research".
As part of the lecture, I will show various difficulties that arise in both approaches to the explanation of creation. which are also expressed in a short student film called "The Research" that will be shown in the lectures
The lectures will be given on Sunday, May 10.5.09, 20 at 00:XNUMX PM at the Techno-De Observatory in Givat Olga-Hadera. After the lecture at Tekhnode, the director of the observatory, Ilan Manolis, will speak, followed by a discussion.
The same lecture will be given on May 14.5.09, 21 at 30:XNUMX at the Mitzpe HaKohavim in Givatayim, Bershit Gan Aliya II Street.
You're all invited
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shika:
The opinion of scientists is that the first life was also created in an evolutionary process (not one that was based on DNA, but still evolution).
for example This article
You can suggest another process and if it makes more sense then they will accept it but don't try to offer God as an explanation without explaining how God was created and how you know he exists.
By the way, evolution is of course in direct conflict with the description of creation as it appears in the Torah.
to Michael
If you know how to produce a tomato seed using technology, you will be able to produce any seed
As it is written in Genesis that God created each seed according to its kind - God does not have to be physical or
According to each sketch of a human being - for the sake of clarification - some of the theory of evolution may be correct,
And prior to all - the origin of life in which I think evolution has no role.
Shika:
I'm sorry but I didn't find any information in your response.
to Michael
If you know how to create a tomato seed in the technological substrates - you will be able to create any seed
As it is written in Genesis that God created each seed according to its kind - God does not have to be physical
And not according to the sketch of a human being.
Shika:
I speak on behalf of those you were speaking to when you said "you".
Do you always address everyone?
You can't trust a box that's a scam and a worm just like you can't trust a box that's jam and tomatoes, but what does that matter?
To Michael
Do you always speak for everyone? - Can you trust a box that is a scam and a worm?
Shika:
You can trust what's in our box.
I understand you are inferring from your experience with your box but not everyone is the same.
Darwin is dead and you trust too much in the little box in your head - and even today you will find
Old things that will buy your computer - and download it at a price with a file about evolution
which is just fashion - if you know everything - I prefer to wait!
Dawn:
Your first sentence describes exactly the idea against which Jose Ortega y Gast (a philosopher who predicted the First World War about 13 years before it broke out because he correctly analyzed the trends of society) came out against in his book "Revolt of the Masses".
Let there be no misunderstanding - by the word "crowds" he means you and your ilk - people who are not ready to accept the fact that those who have proven themselves more in studies and science really know more.
Delays in publishing theories that were more common in the past were mainly due to the fact that religion and other superstitions still dominated the level and science was in its infancy.
Today it does not happen.
The human fabric is entangled with each other and it is not possible to "elevate" scientists above the rest in relation to the development of humanity.
We must not forget that research is always related to funding, therefore the issue of money and power arises.
Not every brilliant person has the means to finance his research, so the political and institutional bodies come into the picture and there are also interests here.
For the most part, technologies will evolve if they find a military (power) or mass civilian application (money)
Religious and royal institutions supported scientists and helped growth.
To this day the motto of the prestigious Oxford University is: "My Lord is the light".
Darwin's celebrated University of Cambridge to this day boasts the motto: "Hence the light and the gust of holiness"
Did we talk about the delusions? Darwin waited 20 years to publish his articles in order not to be considered "fanciful"
Mendel was recognized as a genius about 50 years after he published his research.
Try to imagine Galileo sharing his ideas with people back in 1600….
They would stare at him like a freak and slap him in the face that he is: a liar, delusional and what not..
to dawn,
I bothered myself and read this discussion from beginning to end one more time, and I realized that there was no chance of a conversation in the first place. You believe that your personal opinions, your worldview and your personal delusions have global consequences and importance.
You (and apparently Hugin too) believe that there are a large number of realities, and they are all equivalent, although you have advantages over the others - and the others will still understand your deep insights in a few years.
* Is the sun rising now? Depends on what reality you are in.
* Two plus two equals four? Don't be dogmatic, there are realities where this is not true, you are just not open enough to understand it.
* Water boiling at a hundred degrees? Depends on what period/time it was measured. After all, there is a cycle of cover and disclosure, changing perceptions
Indeed, you are not unique, nor special, there are many who think like you.
But here's a challenge:
Try to estimate, between yourself, what was the contribution to human knowledge in the last two hundred years (or more), of people with a worldview like yours, compared to people with a scientific worldview.
You do dozens of actions a day, without paying attention to them: turning on a light, driving a car, using a computer, watching TV, using the phone, flying to distant places, using advanced medicines, innovative surgeries (not on us) and much more.
All these are applications of the progress of human knowledge.
Do you (and Hugin too) really believe that all methods for obtaining knowledge, for understanding reality, for technological progress are equivalent???
Do you really believe that everyone is equally responsible for the progress of human knowledge? The different religions?, the New Age?, the crystals?, the astrologers? The numerologists? Readers in coffee?
Kudos to you for trying to discredit step by step.
Avi:
I tried.
Michael:
See my words in your own way, I will not interfere with your interpretation and interpretation as you wish.
By the way, Hugin:
There is no issue here of damage beyond the capacity to contain.
Everything in your comment is simply a lie.
Hugin:
it's really pretty!
From the top of your seat you watch me - the little one - and volunteer to walk with me step by step.
I don't know where you want to lead me with these steps, but the first step you propose is not acceptable to me.
I will not apologize for being a fascist.
Take my words in the right proportion.
I don't want to lose my examining eyes, my mind, and the ability to see the subtleties of all the layers reflected in the conversations here.
If I offended beyond the capacity of containment to accommodate, sorry.
Michael: I will try to walk with you step by step, little by little.
In my opinion, however, before that, you should apologize to Google first.
Hoggin, you're lashing out again without any justification. Science is the most honest body and Michael represents it faithfully. I have not seen a single honest charlatan. Everyone lies to attract customers, from astrologers to coffee readers and nose pickers.
Next time you make fun of someone I'm sorry but I'll have to delete the comment. for your benefit
Hugin:
Why do you lie and slander?
For those who have not yet lost their discerning eye and sanity:
It is about practical, systematic and charismatic science.
God forbid, let's not take the charisma of the subjects of his judgement, to the point of self-blindness, to justify it ;)
And as Michael from the subjects of his flags demonstrate in practice, the goal sanctifies all means to their claim, even if it is dishonesty, plagiarism, covering the eyes of the beholder, defaming others, trying to bring down imaginary enemies, denying the foundation of his foundation and his scientific studies, burying the foundations of the teachings of thought and morality , and everything that comes out of it.
There are those whose sight is painful.
And there are those who always know that tomorrow the sun will rise despite everything.
Dawn:
The one who lives in a dark world is of course you.
I proved my point that all New Ageists are lying but you just don't see the proof.
If you free your brain from its washing and read my words - there is a chance that you will understand.
Lashahar, science is not a democracy, progress in science is not determined by votes but by the truth and that is the only test, no matter how many believe that rabbis, gurus and priests will always have more believers because of their charisma,
Pay attention to Michael's response 275....amusing...
Fundamentalist religious style absolutism.
Michael, everyone lies, and only you and we are the most normal of all?
Who is this living in a dark world..?
Something general about the joke about "excessive plasticity":
When two people argue - each dismisses the other's words.
So who of the two sides rules out more?
Of course no side!
This reminds me of another form of attack by the unreasonable people:
"You always think you're right!" They tend to defy.
My standard response to this claim is of course something along the lines of "unlike you - when I don't think I'm right - I don't argue"
I see you've been writing more while I've been away.
Hugin (195):
Scientific honesty does not require personal honesty (a scientist can also be a thief) but nevertheless - as you said - scientific honesty requires an examination of the claims.
This is exactly what science does and it is exactly what the New Age people do not do and are not willing to do.
Isn't it surprising that none of them have yet picked up the Randy award that has been offered to them in 45 years?
That's why when you said that the disqualifier in Momo disqualifies - you actually disqualified in your mind.
You have to understand that this expression is not true that applies to everyone but only to those who blame others for a defect that they actually have.
By the way - your attempt to teach Ozzy something about science is pathetic.
Gogil (278):
you made me laugh
Please come and follow the escalation that begins with your first response (which also attacks me, although less than others):
"In my opinion you are not a fascist, in the worst case you just create an unpleasant atmosphere for some people.
Now be troublesome and prove it with the unkind response you write"
Then - in different responses - you try to explain to me what I'm arguing about and attack me for it.
Then, in response 144 you increase to do.
You write (as if I really need to tell you what you wrote):
"I will miss the discussion with you like a toothache."
If you didn't understand - this is the exposure of the teeth I was talking about.
In the same response, you also blurt out the following sentences (and no one will be confused if you claim that you didn't mean me - the words really don't fit my description, but they do fit the way you wanted to paint me):
"Fascists accuse the tolerant of laxity.
Fascists dismiss criticism of them with contempt.
Fascists are trying to shut up."
Now tell me: why did you actually ask me to prove what you already proved?
By the way - I'm sorry for the verbal violence, but the reader is asked to understand that, on the whole, I quoted other people's words.
Hugin (279):
You say I'm confused and afflicted with excessive sculpture.
Beyond the fact that I reject both the content of your words and their style - are you (as a science lover) able to point out even one true thing that I rejected or is your claim simply another claim of the type that people of the new age direct at a person's body when they are unable to deal with his arguments?
Hugin (287):
What nonsense?
Did I say that I have nothing to say and that writing has no purpose?
Even in response 252 I had something to say and I said it.
This, of course, is in complete contrast to most of your responses.
Pine,
I got.
Indeed, you need to know when you come across a lost case, and just move on.
Apparently I was a little late to realize this.
Noam, as I mentioned in the past - words of reason will not help you in this struggle, even if your goal is good - to bring an entire community of burning people to real enlightenment (and not some kind of "spiritual" enlightenment).
Hugin is in a warm and pleasant bubble, and any attempt to shatter it will cause her to sink more and more into the same dream in which she feels safe. Something that prevents her from the need to meet reality.
As you said yourself, that ignorance, hers she calls faith, makes her happy. Do you think she would sacrifice happiness for something so "wretched" as true enlightenment of knowledge and reality?
She will throw back at you everything you say and distort reality (for example saying that "science" is a subjective thing after you claimed, in a logical way, that this is the way her faith works). All just to not get out of the bubble...
Michael:
Regarding your pathetic poetry in response 252, yours:
If the words have nothing to say and the writing has no purpose, then why did you crack your poetry and why do you even respond in writing on this site and on another(?)
to Q
From response to response you simply surpass yourself.
All scientists without exception advocate the scientific method, you have no idea what it is.
That's why they are called scientists, as opposed to charlatans and townspeople like you.
=============================
The purpose of the scientific method, if you haven't understood yet, is to enrich and deepen human knowledge.
As usual you choose the easy way, and use derogatory epithets that illustrate the depth of your ignorance every time, instead of making an effort and trying to understand things that you still haven't been able to do.
I noticed that every time someone brings up a significant point that you are uncomfortable with, you immediately return to your childhood and fill the forum with curses and slander - shame on you.
Fortunately for us and our wisdom in generations and times, there will always always be the educated scientists, with broad horizons and the necessary value reasoning who take care and make sure not to extinguish the embers of knowledge, research, and the broad education despite some passing science brats advocating 'the method' and without understanding what its main purpose is, and what it serves after -Everything .
See the 'Life' entry.
to Q
Today was indeed your lucky day - despite the slim chance, I tried to enlighten your eyes on the sides of reality that you try your best to ignore.
Remain in your ignorance - because it is evident that you like it
Noam:
You have once again proven that you do not deserve any response from me.
What do you insist on over and over again?
Continue with your methods, according to your understanding and if you wish your stupidity lacks maturity, lacks insight, lacks broad horizons, lacks patience in necessary processes, with and without the many stigmas saturated with prejudices, which you inherited from fools no less than you.
There is no need for you to complain about anything that concerns me, my education or any stigma that is pulled from the finger that you wear in your fevered and false mind even if it is very methodical or nonsensical.
What is certain on the face of it: you are not learning anything and once again it is a pity for the conversation between us that leads again to a low point that I have no need for.
I'm sorry I didn't answer you at all.
All the best.
to Q
I would like to state with regret, that everything related to the scientific method, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as a result you reach ridiculous conclusions.
Reporter:
Regarding the perception of the essence of science research and research in general:
a) Each chronological age has its own perception of reality and the nature of time..."
You are again mixing personal experiences with objective reality
The sun sets in the west, - this is an objective reality, which has not changed for billions of years, and no perception of reality of this or that chronological age will change this (this is of course only one example).
You want to engage in personal experiences - this is of course your full right, but science has nothing to do with it. Comparing science's perception of reality with a subjective perception of reality is mixing a species that is not the same, which as mentioned leads to ridiculous conclusions.
Reporter:
"b) Here is actually a verb of the first: each sequence of studies has the perception of reality subordinate to the perception of their period, the group they belong to..."
(b) is the continuation of your mistake as a result of your inability to distinguish between objective reality and personal experiences.
Experiments that were conducted correctly hundreds of years ago, give exactly the same results today (of course with increasing accuracy as a result of improvement in measuring devices). Even a hundred years ago they measured and found water boiling at a hundred degrees (at sea level, etc.), this will not change even in 100 years, no matter what charlatans say.
Reporter:
"The whole of life, the whole of history, the whole of phenomena are built on revelations and cover-ups, on cycles of obfuscation and discovery, etc., etc.
I do not wish to expand here excessively and more than necessary, but these are basic and firm laws of nature that pertain to every field - to every period - and to every historical time"
Your ability to determine what the basic and solid laws of nature are is simply impressive. I have no idea how you decided to give your opening sentence such a high status, but I don't see any cycles of cover-up and obfuscation, I see slow but continuous progress in understanding objective reality, by using the scientific method, and only by the scientific method.
I have not seen any progress by the methods you advocate, of unsubstantiated personal experiences and opinions, a perception of reality that is related to chronological age and many other methods.
I know it would have been much nicer and more democratic to give all methods equal status, but unfortunately in objective reality it's just not like that.
Ketoni advises you how to manage your life, but I can only advise you to invest effort in the philosophical understanding of the scientific method - it is much more difficult than to develop strange speculations without any basis, but it will be very useful for you to formulate a more consistent worldview, even if you continue to adhere to the new ones Age and the rest of the pseudo-science infesting every corner.
Noam:
I don't like repeating the same things I wrote over and over again, especially if they appear in the same article sequence.
If you would like to continue the discussion, which after all is also interesting to me from the direction of thoughts that interest me the most, in any field that expands the mind and knowledge you can, if you would like to respond to my comments/as challenges through other niches and articles presented on the site. I am quite bored and it does not seem right to get stuck in the same article anymore From the time he already begins to exhaust his main points.
And yet, so that you don't think that I have something 'evil' towards you despite the irresponsible 'classifications' that you express over and over and over and over again and which disturb all my lines of thought, my areas of specialization and my personal and intellectual integrity as much as possible, I will go back in more detail to the sentence I wrote to Roy regarding the perception of the essence of science research and research at all:
A) Each chronological age has its own perception of reality and the nature of time, as the wave that dominates the 'big', to which it comes into the world.
b) This is actually a verb of the first: each sequence of studies has a perception of reality that is subordinate to the perception of their period, the group they belong to, and if also as a guest their type of thought also as individuals, who investigate reality and wonders or ills themselves, as their time.
And regarding your last sentence:
The whole of life, the whole of history, the whole of phenomena are built on revelations and cover-ups, on cycles of obfuscation and discovery, etc., etc.
I do not wish to expand here excessively and more than necessary, but these are basic and firm laws of nature that pertain to every field - to every period - and to every historical time in succession, which has no end and is not known with absolute certainty.
Therefore, the studies will always continue, from any direction, from any situation, and from anyone alive, intelligent, educated, capable of conclusions, and eager to learn, and it does not matter at all to which niche and status station (educational brands) they are associated.
And from this it should be clear to you that we will wave in the name of science and behead everyone you think or fabricate, that he is so and so and so no different from any 'Don Quixote' who fights demons that do not exist, but in his mind that is aware of his errors, similar to Michael who is completely confused by an excess of idolatry that is already ridiculous If not deep compassion.
And by the way, I also love science fiction and fantasy of any kind, except that which is actualized and in fact, and looking at the right time and development according to an intelligent rhythm guides my times (including a close and curious monitoring of the developments towards the many consequences of the quantum particle experiment at Zern and all, perhaps, the unexpected involved in the experience before And if and during the experiment,,,which raises countless questions. (A topic that you have not yet answered my question, although your response in which you talk about a quantum theory that you brought up gave me an easy answer to your conclusions and ambitions in that matter).
In response 195 it is claimed that I attacked one of the respondents here.
So first of all I did not attack, and if someone claims so, he has the burden of proof so that I can apologize. If not, he must apologize (but I will not demand it).
Even in the virtual world we have to take responsibility for our actions.
There is a famous saying:
"Your freedom of movement to wave your hand ends at the end of my nose"
This saying is a metaphor and so is the following sentence:
"There are those who, when they don't understand, bare their teeth and then - when they get punched with those teeth, they compare the feeling to a toothache" (from response 147)
The wise reader will read and judge who is the attacker and who is the attacked
And please - even if someone responds to these words - please do so in a respectful manner and without verbal violence.
to Q,
With your permission, let us expand on the principle you proposed: "scientific honesty requires personal honesty"
Personal honesty is required of everyone: scientists, pseudo-scientists, theists and atheists - of course
I don't know how it is with you, but the scientific method does not dismiss any phenomenon casually and with disdain, it just sets a high bar for storytellers, personal experiences, hallucinations and just plain bullshitters.
The standard is verification, by proof, conducting a controlled experiment, which can be repeated with the same results everywhere, and proposing a principled way to contradict the initial assumption.
You probably didn't know this, but science recognizes infinitely more strange phenomena than most New Age stories, with one difference, that these phenomena have been found to have clear verifications, including predictions made based on these phenomena and their suitability.
Example: the computers we use are designed on the principles of quantum theory, a theory that claims, among other things, that a car can flutter in its entirety through a solid concrete wall, to the other side (although the chance of such an occurrence for the next billion years is extremely small).
It doesn't matter at all who managed to get the proof, as long as it can be repeated and get the same results.
On the other hand, contrary to your opinion, if repeating the verification / experiment does not give the same results, this is an excellent reason to doubt that verification
Verification can be achieved in many ways, but not all ways are kosher, and as mentioned, history has proven that personal stories and experiences, however powerful they may be, do not constitute sufficient verification.
And one last thing, to re-examine things that have been disproved in the past, is a terrible waste of time.
Scientific honesty (old-age:) requires personal honesty.
At least one thing a person is supposed to do, even if only for himself: in everything he has ever doubted or dismissed casually with contempt, he must return and investigate with seven scrutinizing eyes that 'thing' and whatever it may be or was, or existed, that he dismissed, dismissed casually hand, or cast a heavy doubt on it.
This is the nature of truth = verification. And if not this: then, at least the minimum of pure intellectual honesty and the recognition of the limitations of proof for a given time (your own..and the others for your time)
But again, this does not mean that if you as an individual did not reach the achievement, the others and those who are different from it in their own way, did not reach it either.
As mentioned: the disqualifier - in his own right disqualifies.
And it is no longer important what how and which side.
Dawn:
Not true.
The New Age people are all - but all of them! We are being lied to.
Sometimes they do it for money and sometimes for the appreciation of other people.
The scientists also sell their claims but which, at least, are tested claims.
And believe me: the people of science know how to dream just as well as the people of the New Age. More than that - there is no chance that they will prefer the realization of the dreams of the New Age people over the realization of their own dreams.
The New Age is not a necessary step on the way to scientific development, but a tracking and harmful factor in every aspect.
When I come across an article, I don't expect to read Torah from Sinai. Also when I watch the news. I don't believe anything thrown in front of me.
My "truth" is based only on personal experiences and personal insights that came due to an event
Article, movie, song and more..
I especially do not believe those who try to "sell". Those with vested interests keep me away.
A true healer does this not for his own good but for the good of others and understands that everything is connected and when he brings good to others he brings good to the world and actually to himself as well.
As for the New Age, I don't think they try to physically explain how things work but put the emphasis on the application, such as healing.
A small child who uses crying to his advantage, does not understand why or how it works on his mother but he has noticed that it works and he can use it.
Various astrologers and fortune-tellers actually "exploit" these principles for hypnosis or suggestion. thought creates reality.
How It Works? It is the role of science, step by step, day after day to peel back the shell.
"New-Agers" dream of the future to come and the high-tech people build it.
In many areas of our lives, such as: poetry, literature, sculpture, love and other emotions, painting and art in general, there is no need to establish, prove and plan experiments.
However, when someone tries to say something about the reality in which we live, and claims that religion, science, evolution, our New Age creation are all of equal value, here I have fundamental, not to say abysmal, disagreements with him.
The difference between the scientific method and the rest of pseudo-science (creationism, crystal science, voodoo, numerology, astrology, coffee reading, New Age, tarot, etc., etc.) is irreconcilable:
The scientific method is not satisfied with stories, personal experiences, hallucinations, vain imaginations and the expression of opinions, but asks for proofs, validating experiments, objective observations, and perhaps most importantly - a criterion for contradicting the theory.
The scientific method is the most humble of all the pseudo-sciences, it does not claim to know everything, but outlines a path, which over time (in the short term even in science there is a possibility for charlatans to screw up) its effectiveness has been proven countless times, to separate the chaff from the chaff, between complete nonsense and proven truths, and therefore science He alone advanced and advances human knowledge more than all the pseudo-sciences combined.
The simple question I posed to Q and Shahar, and to all pseudoscientific believers wherever they are, is so basic, without any intention of offending:
"When you come across a New Age article, for example, how do you distinguish between a serious article in the field and complete nonsense? What criteria will you use?"
"And if you don't have any, how do you think it affects the credibility of the New Age in particular, and the rest of pseudoscience in general?"
As I thought in advance, I did not receive an answer / reference. but only for childish evasions and defamations. (I admit that I wasn't always so gentle either)
The "exercise" I did with the article Heni Ige Hempoverak and Oily was intended to illustrate the problem, and it did succeed:
Shahar read the article and stated:
"You can even say that these are metaphors designed to draw a more abstract concept"
And Q with characteristic malice stated that:
"Not the article Avily, but my comments..."
If there is no way to distinguish between a real New Age article and complete nonsense, then it is possible that the entire New Age world - in the absence of objective criteria - is full to the brim with nonsense, stupid nonsense and charlatans.
The above is true for all pseudo-sciences who do not need to substantiate their opinion, except for reasons such as: "I know this from personal experience", "my friend told me", "I read about it in the newspaper", ""it just works" etc.
Pine:
Again you cataloged, although you may not have meant me personally.
You connected to Michael in a symbiotic way. You noticed that he categorized me as one of,,,
You connected in a mysterious and puzzling or surprising way (I won't confuse) with Noam and again, as if you became as 'one' to work for something vague or systematic (all of this still needs to be tested in reality) which is currently called 'contemporary science'.
You kept attacking me 'as if' at every turn in this discussion.
And I ask: What do you want to say if this way was to find a 'belonging group' (albeit vital) in order to attack something that is actually 'fictional' in the mind, which translated the conversation here in a projective way and maybe also irresponsible and controlled.
But, let's say we passed Shabbat.
And for me, in spite of everything, she was a violation, because I would be able to continue going with her to the other corners of observation and observation in my life.
So, thank you also for the wishes for my extreme age and many experiences in it.
And I'm sorry, where the hell did you wink again at the end of your response with difficult questions in your life??? Or did you speak from your station again when it's not my personal station at all? Are you again trying to convince me of something that you don't think I'm knowledgeable about?
Hugin,
You once again reinforce the message I tried to convey. And you are right, the message is not for you - that is, not only for you. I chose you not necessarily as a representative but as a way to convey the message in a more personal tone to that public of readers that I did "catalogue". And I think I was rightly categorized - as if you were to categorize me as a secular Jew. Will I be offended by that catalog? People are offended by "catalogue", and distinguish it from "sector" when they feel that it illuminates them in a negative light.
The message I was trying to convey, and as I mentioned that your every response only reinforces it, is that you are unable to deal with what I and others write to you. You are not able to face yourself and ask yourself difficult questions. You avert your eyes when you see comments that may "accidentally" cause you to get into such situations.
Then you answer in a vague way, "The main thing is that you understand what you wanted to convey", "It's none of my business to mess with anything that isn't mine" (or what did you want to say that I'm not capable of digging inside you and dealing with all of this?) and these and other responses designed to deflect reality and the difficult questions smiling
To my father: Thanks for the clarification.
To Oren and Noam: I would like you to refer again to the 210 response I wrote to Noam.
And because of this, Oren, there is no need for you to pour the whole basket on me or on another hitchhiker that you decided represents something like this or that on which you built towers, as reflected in the references I read here.
The main thing in our case is that you understand for yourself and each for himself and if you want for his friend :) what he wrote.
More than that, I have no business rummaging through anything that is not mine and there is no need for any of you to burden yourself with catalogs that are not related to the matter.
I think you misunderstood Noam. He means something he wrote in one of the comments and not my article.
It's sad that people are unable to face reality, and use many tools to not only confront it but even ignore it (which is worse, I'm not sure).
Why are you unable to answer a simple question? A question that arises not from a desire to humiliate or harm (or at least that is not the goal), but from a desire to understand the behavior of an entire sector of the population. A question with an anthropological essence (hopefully it will become archaeological in the near future...) to understand your ways of thinking.
Why are you fighting with all your might, not with us - but with yourself, to answer this question. Are you afraid that you will have to face the truth? that in order to fill your life with a faith that might satisfy your life spiritually, are you willing to settle for lies and emptiness?
I can tell the truth, I'm not afraid to confess. that to some extent I envy you and others. who are able to feel full, and all this in exchange for emptiness (whether in words spoken or in thoughts). But... I personally am not ready to make such a sacrifice.
I'm ready to be afraid all my life, to feel that I might be alone in this world, that I might be as inferior as any worm that has evolved in this world (well, maybe a little better off). All this and more I sacrifice just to not feel that I missed in my life the ability to accept myself and the world as it is.
I am not willing to sacrifice fear and empty satisfaction for blind satisfaction! Will you and others like you be able to one day cross the threshold, accept the truth, and come to terms with it?
I don't think so… it's too scary for you. Especially if it means admitting that all your life your faith has been as empty and pointless as a shell. To admit that you lived your life without knowing what was hidden inside the shell and all the time you claimed that it was just the opposite, that others did not know the "truth".
Without insulting, I will bring here a proverb that is simplistic but so true and deep:
Ignorance is a bliss
I hope you internalize the message that I and others tried to convey to you. May you find the courage to confront yourself and ask yourself questions you are afraid to ask, and more than that, maybe discover the answers. A person cannot be true and whole with himself before he is ready to dig deep inside himself and ask the questions that bother him, not just ask the convenient questions.
But you probably prefer to live happily (even if you are not aware of what is really happening in the universe around you), than to be truly whole. That's your right. And not only that, as I mentioned earlier - you and people like you are a source of envy on the part of many people who are not willing to pay the price.
Good Shabbat to you too, and may you live happily for 1200 years.
Q
You really don't read what you write:
In 191 I wrote:
"At dawn,
As one who deepens the New Age, I would appreciate it if you could explain to an ignorant person like me the following passage taken from one of the many New Age websites (my free translation - I hope I didn't miss it):
"The energy transmitted in the universe at any time communicates with the crystals that were discovered in the depths of the Great Pyramid in Egypt (a discovery that for unknown reasons was hidden from the public). As a result, a duality is created in the consciousness that originates from the flow that comes from Saturn, and is found in a straight line with the Mayan pyramids.
At the same time, already hundreds of years ago, the Mayan people discovered that there are clear energetic blockages, which originate from a huge force emanating from the center of the earth.
These blockages make it difficult to see being beyond the private immediate experience."
That's it - all the "blame" for exposing your villas and Shahar Ali only
Avi Bilozovsky
Do as you wish: happily I have no power over anything of yours.
I hope you don't feel threatened by my words.
Again, as usual, you are sending me messages without reading and understanding the sequence of events.
But as you understand, at my age they don't take it to heart.
It says in the article that you wrote it, in response 255 Noam states that he wrote this article.
Would you be so kind as to explain who wrote it and what is going on here?
My correction to 256:
Q's response to the fact that the article is not an oil but a reactionary one, was said in 249 (apparently the narration has changed)
Sorry for that
Avi,
Urgent - please delete Q's messages
They just do a wonderful job of promoting science versus its bullshit
Hugin, I'm on my way to delete your messages. You attack me, the other writers and the commenters for no reason. No one is forcing you to read articles defending evolution. There are enough sites that write the opposite and don't care about the truth.
And you are Roy Tsenza:
************
What did you prove?:
You sinned with your last words
To all the words, as means, that you use: in every article, in every song and in every way as an expression and in order to express yourself and all the ways of your research.
Shabbat Shalom and a good week to you too.
addition to 257:
Q Just so you know, if I published an article correcting quantum theory, or relativity, or any scientific discipline, no one would buy it. At the most, they would ask me to substantiate my words, prove it, and recommend experiments that would support my opinion
That's the whole difference between science and nonsense
*Write an article
Do the sites need protection from religious responders to articles about evolution
There are reports of computers crashing when this thread was opened
to Q
I liked your previous response better (251):
"The article is not evil, but your reference and your empty comments..."
I proved another thing that in a sense you haven't caught yet:
Neither you nor others like you, who believe in nonsense, without any need for any substantiation, without any need for objective criteria that help separate grandmother's stories from solid truths,
No ability to contribute anything interesting to human knowledge. You are ready to take in vanity, flourish vanity so easily, and still be happy about it.
Good luck until 120
Noam:
You have proven one thing: you are not a scientist, but a criminal to science.
*****************************
I suggest to all readers of the science to think carefully before you refer in any way to the articles included in it.
And as for the respondents: this is of course a private matter :)
A small addition to 255:
Oren - Blackmail for your exact diagnosis...
to Q
It was clear to me that you would slip away. The question was addressed to you - and the answer should be important to you, otherwise how will you distinguish between eloquence and lofty thoughts?
For your information (and for Shahar's information):
The article is completely ole, complete meaningless nonsense.
And how do I know?
Because I myself wrote it for a minute and a half. It is not taken from any site and is not translated from any source - just a collection of inflated words - complete nonsense
Now you understand why you should at least answer my question for yourself?
And remind those who forgot:
Shahar said the following about this article:
"You could even say that these are metaphors meant to paint a more abstract concept."
Oh well...
And a final word to Q
Indeed, we have no basis for a joint discussion, you are a hopeless prattle, who does not differentiate between hallucinations and childish imagination from reality, and tries to cover it up with a lot of inflated words - it doesn't work for you
And one more thing before I think again:
Maybe so, the article is indeed very stupid and it turns out that it provokes a chain of stupid reactions corresponding to and similar to it. And indeed, it turns out that I wanted to deny (from the beginning) the author's deliberate provocation of other philosophies that also pertain to the Darwinist questions in his words.
And for all this and all the rest I have nothing but regret for all the upheaval that resulted from it.
My personal opinion is actually not important, nor was I mistaken.
Roy:
Thank you for the deep enlightenment, despite the deep gap in our ways of achieving, our ways, our approaches, we discovered our species, etc., etc.
Hugin:
If you didn't understand - then in that discussion I identified myself as a "real secular" and Mike is the nickname of one of the idiots.
This song, although nice to my taste, is very far from being the most essential thing I have ever expressed.
What makes you say this is the preference you give to words over content.
There is a single type of reality in which the word dominates
And this is the reality of faith
Because reality does not force belief
She turns her head away from the facts.
That's why all lovers of faith misunderstand
And exaggerate words about nothing
They do not try to demonstrate the truth of their words
And just turning our time into the past.
They speak to instill faith in us
which has no basis in reality
And in conversation with them no idea is built
Logic drowns in chatter.
For response 245:
At least the discussion there was much more in-depth and the song was thrown away from there of course, Mike? What you have attached below is the most essential thing you have ever expressed.
For me, right now the rest of your words here and there, including your assistants, are enough.
Roy:
My response from 11:50 was put on hold for a while, right now I see that it has gone up.
Noam: Allow me not to refer to you anymore, you don't have a tone of introspection in your reading and it's a shame for my time.
The article is not evil, but your reference and your empty and rambling comments that lack thought and depth even in the things that concern you..or others.
And in response to your last specific question: No, I don't want to help you with anything, you asked that question to Shahar and I don't understand what it has to do with me and my previous comments, before the intervention ofRoey Tsezana and what it has to do with this article.
And as I mentioned, you enjoy continuing: the Sabbath is still long, to think. Toff?
*It is more correct to ask right now: Is stupidity contagious?
Noam,
A fool or an oiler - you are not like that at all,
But your world is different from theirs, like the world of the eagle and the scornful.
You think, think, invent -
and subjects everything to the national reality test.
In their world there is no right or wrong,
no lie or nonsense,
It all just depends on the number of words in the sentences,
And sometimes also the message itself - the hidden one -
Hidden is in Lat, between the words,
And its inventors can't find it either.
And who is right - us or them?
And the 'wise' will say: There is no error or logic,
Because they see the reality test as a disgrace.
And yet we will offer them a simple test,
Let him test the extent of their faith in their own words.
We will put them all against the wall,
The rifle platoon has its kidney compared to Tazkir,
And we will clarify the most important question of all:
"Can words abandon reality?"
"Certainly," answered the first,
The signal will be given - and his life's blood will be splashed on the wall.
afraid a little more, suddenly suddenly,
Looking at every new-ager and every delusional in a dream,
About the reality test illustrated in this song.
The question will be asked again:
"Can reality be omitted?"
The firing squad has just decided,
Verify the answer to the simple question.
And then all those alien callers,
extraterrestrial and half-vampire healers,
Philosophers without a divorce and without a job,
With a lot of self-respect, but little from the environment,
will shout as one the same conclusion,
Every bereaved father, every widowed woman came to her,
Because reality is terrifyingly strong, it cannot be deflected,
the trajectory of the bullet or the flow of the vein.
And what will be left at the end of that day?
Everyone will go home, as if in a dream,
excuses will be found, tweets will be made,
All their shouting was but a hoot,
But why did they look away from that reality -
Is the whole mind for them vanity?
To that, my friends, the answer is already clear,
And there is no need to search in secret, in the Koran or the Torah:
Because words do not change reality.
In the meantime, for anyone who wants to defend Islam, here is some more food for thought:
http://blip.tv/file/1382254
to Q
Take your time
The Sabbath is still long...
to Q
I have nothing but regret that my greatness is revealed in many. Still, I'm addressing you directly, hoping you won't find a way to evade:
Question 1
How do you distinguish between a serious article and casual ramblings?
What are your criteria (follow-up question to question 1)?
Question 2
Are you willing to help me (since I am an evil person in your opinion) to understand the article I quoted in 193?
And if you haven't noticed, I asked two separate questions
Roy
Unlike those who think that the roulette of his poetic poetry entertains, nevertheless it has a penetrating content that deserves an even deeper analysis. :)
So if you turned to me, like any non-someone on a different wave, if you had some message to convey, you succeeded.
The question is whether you refer to this poem as well as all your other writings, and everyone among your close associates who really is also here, on the virtual science website - if he is a truth seeker, manages to deepen and internalize and also if in a systematic way.. is able to understand.
I hope that you will also continue to express yourself in poetry or song, and even grave secrets and nano-researches will be revealed to you in Crimea to the Arabs. :)
And if in a virtual virus you found a chip and even an anti-aging drug, if not true, I would not underestimate the message even if it requires in-depth confirmation / cross-examination of evidence / carbon analysis / and everything involved in this 'gerbil'.
For the rest of the things, at this stage of internalization (I hope) if there is ever a need, maybe I will refer to it.
But still I will emphasize: *Each chronological age has its own perception of reality.
* And each sequence of studies has the perception of reality subordinate to the perception of their period, their group and if also individually - the researchers investigate their own reality and illnesses as their time.
So good luck, if that's what you're asking for.
pleasantness:
With every repetition of you as 'you' and 'them' and the like, you expose your stupidity more and more.
But as mentioned, Shabbat is not over.
Roy and others:
It reminds me of a poetic response I once wrote in an endless discussion on Oi and Inet.
This is response 293 in the discussion at the following link:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3458861,00.html
A direct link to the page where the response is
http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/App/TalkBack/CdaViewOpenTalkBack/1,11382,L-3458861-10,00.html
I'm giving the links just so you can read the whole context and understand all the hidden clues in the song (including the nicknames of the people in it).
You can get a fairly complete picture by reading the following comments:
182, 198, 221, 223, 231, 271, 281, 289,
In any case - you can enjoy the song even without understanding the whole context and so that you don't have to jump between the sites, it's in front of you:
The new king's clothes - the real story
Man came down from the trees years ago,
He had already dressed and his mind had begun to intensify,
But the question of the origin of all life still remains unknown -
Such a kind of black hole or naked singularity
And as into every hole idols pushed there
And their judges cheered "There is a solution!"
If only our eyes and minds could disappear
The last doubt will also be lost.
We can then claim that God is the clothing
The singularity is no longer naked
And if logic emerges, then friend - don't despair
Then push the head to the ground.
Then Darwin, Watson, Crick and others appeared
And a multitude of pieces of wisdom were woven into all kinds of stitches
And the king of life can finally get dressed
Stop being ashamed of man's stupidity.
But the stupid crowd refused to give up
Because "Who is Darwin that our God left?!"
A big bang of logic preyed on the mind
And from the monkey trial the background radiation slowly died down
But because the radiation was so violent
Still here and there she still raises her head
in the form of "Mike" or "understand" or "logic"
Canceling the introduction does is an attempt.
"Mike" suddenly starts shouting "the king is naked"
But everyone says he's dressed
"dressed?" "Mike" then shouts, "You see his cytochrome!"
But everyone knows it's bullshit.
But "Mike"? He is mature and "to understand" is from Man
To the land of madness he soars on the wings of an ostrich
His "logic" is screwed up, a coma in his mind
His eyes are already wet - he only sees in his mind's eye
Roy:
Wow!
to dawn and Q,
How long will you keep me in suspense?
How much severe intellectual suffering will you cause me by ignoring such a simple and basic wish?
It's not because you simply haven't seen it, so I'll repeat it one more time:
When you come across an article on New Age, (for example 193) by what criteria do you decide if it's just a joke or a serious article?
Shahar, you wrote it yourself (213):
"By the way, in New Age, because the field has been hacked - there are a lot of charlatans..."
Hence this is a question of immense importance, especially to the people of the New Age.
And an accompanying question:
If you don't have such criteria, how do you think it affects the credibility of the New Age in general?
(The above questions have already appeared at least twice but have not received a response)
Roy - you are my new idol! I liked it 🙂
I think you have missed your destiny and maybe the final estate is waiting for you in the "New/Retarded-Age". It's amazing that it comes to you so naturally 🙂
Just a small problem, behind your words, poetic, confusing and vague as they are, there really is a message behind them. This is where you failed... you still have a lot to learn (Hugin, do you have any tips?), but you are definitely on the right track!
Indeed, if only critics of articles and studies were provided herewith I think I would start practicing "neo-retard" poetry right now.
And thanks again Roy for this wonderful and entertaining piece
Neither Duplicate nor Evil,
Neither did Virtu/Eli/Oz Virley Debil,
Certainly not to snack on the eggplant in the package.
I consider my steps to the sound of the leading flute
Trying the New Age language - but without generalizing -
switch. as I wish, and feel...like an idol (!!)
Thinking about my tiresome and noble studies,
and how easy it could be,
If only I could - my underage examiners -
to thatch their ears with gardisil,
to write to my heart's desire - and to vilify,
Every flowery rumor/sect, every thin find,
All of them as truth - as true as a steaming mouth.
Without a real test, without even starting -
Wanting to fumble with the lampshade's truth tassels.
But many have already done such an exercise,
For ten-thousand years, and the age is still ticking,
results? There is nothing at all to compare -
Between true doctors and idol doctors,
Between GPSs and pyramid crystals, hidden from the enamored walking public.
But we will continue to explore, compare and save,
You know the truth from the elephant's toes,
of Mati-Met, life as a parasite,
on medicines, technologies and other age-related things,
Knowing that their days are numbered, but trying to instill,
A way of lies and nonsense - alas, how honor brought them down!
Therefore, we can only say about them (without incriminating),
Gerbil, gerbil and more gerbil!
Roy
Are you sure you responded and not some evil duplicate with a dumb virus that has undergone a strange mutation?
And maybe it's you? But, still maybe stuck -
Are you infected with a virtual type of new virus called: hit below the belt?
Shabbat Shalom: greetings to the stuck lips, may they be healthy :).
I just now saw Roy's response.
This is what is called "putting them in as a hogin" 🙂
By the way - I didn't mention the reason for the absence and thought it worth noting that besides the gym, food and all the usual things I also saw the movie "The Shaking Method".
Recommended for anyone who cares about what is happening in our tiny country.
I've been absent for a while, so now I'll address what I get the impression that hasn't received a perfect response yet (because Noam and Oren did a good job, as expected, and a large part of the nonsense has already been answered).
Shahar (response 213)
Your words about World War II are one of the most malicious lies your cult members spread.
There was no scientific motivation behind this war. It's just a plot.
The truth is that Hitler simply founded a new religion - indeed a religion without God but one that should be accepted (and is accepted) by its believers without critical thought - just like all other religions and exactly the opposite of the scientific method.
Therefore - along with all the other terrible wars that religions have waged, you can definitely name the Second World War as well.
Science - like a hammer - has applications of every kind and this does not belong to science at all.
The one who consistently chooses the satanic uses of everything - whether it's science or whether it's the wheel - it's religion.
If there is an area where science and religion really do not overlap, it is the area of activating people.
Science only provides people with information. Religion (including Nazism) tells them how they should behave and who and when they should murder.
Your words about the New Age in that comment are nonsense.
After all, everything that is not hacked is science and does not need that shameful title of "new era" at all.
As soon as people are ready to submit their claims to a systematic and unbiased test, they turn their backs on that new field and become scientists.
That's why none of the people of the new age know what he is talking about (and note! I'm not saying that his words are necessarily not true - I'm just saying that he claims they are true without knowing it) this is charlatanism for its own sake on the part of each and every one of the people of the new age.
Dawn:
Your words in response 216 mean nothing.
Hugin (response 217):
You have answered questions that have not been asked, but you have not yet answered any questions that are being asked.
Hugin (response 219):
There are several articles on the site on the subject and I suggest you read them.
Dawn (response 220):
Typical New Age stuff. None of the things you said in this response are known to you.
Oren (response 225):
The truth is that there is already a similar section called "free comments". It's the name of an article, but it's an empty article to which it was decided to redirect comments that don't belong to articles. You can use it. The problem is, of course, that these companies are sure for some reason that they actually contribute more to science than material for an anthropological experiment.
To Roy - I liked it
To Shahar and the loyal Q, if you can't explain your criteria for distinguishing between a rant and a serious New Age article, how do you think that affects the credibility of the New Age?
Lenaam: and, and, and,
There are certain things and ideas that the academics don't say, don't express in the corridors, and over time maybe even stop thinking about them. But in at least two situations, if you also stop pondering and thinking, you will be considered dead or worse, a useless evildoer: the first - in the toilets, the second - in old age.
The third situation is a lifeline: the possibility to speak out already in order to save the generation that forgot to think really in the first two situations, ironically, it is the 'Internet' (with its two contradictory faces) which also acts as a 'mast' to save the generation that is about to sink into it.
Think about it, before you even respond.
I'm not sure you'll understand, but I'm doing my part: I answered you/you/and you.
And Shabbat Shalom to you too: Michael.
Noam,
Your world is not like hers, and therefore... there is no point in answering. The fool has no duplicate identity. And not every eggplant will fall. There is no answer to every question... as there is no shirt for every ant. The Maya are right and the Danes are wrong and both swim like fish in the pool of wisdom.
Hope I answered the matter and the point. For calculations and proofs see Appendix A.
Q
I read 219 again and again and did not find even one question mark.
I found many interesting assertions without a single proof.
There is no difficulty in adding countless interesting assertions, if only you don't have to prove them (and if you ask nicely - I will soon produce a few dozen of these).
Please help me - what question did I not answer in 219?
at dawn:
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what your criteria are for distinguishing between utter nonsense and a serious New Age article.
Are these objective criteria?
Is it a matter of mood? The state of the moon?
This is a serious question
Q: You are also welcome to try to answer the question
Noam:
Before answering honestly to question 219.
So, in your free time, if you feel like replying.
Shabbat Shalom.
to Q
Please explain to me one more time: what is your perception of time? Is it as you stated in your answer to Shahar? Do you think differently than him?
I have no idea what you are asking me to humiliate the poor about - about the fact that no one (including me) can understand you?
Has it ever occurred to you, if only for a fraction of a second, that the difficulty in understanding you lies in you?
In any case, it is evident that you are satisfied with your situation, so don't let anyone change that, - after all - it is not certain that you will be completely satisfied with yourself once you understand your situation... :)
Noam, give up. You will never get answers to your questions from them - either about their opinions and their understanding of established scientific theories or about one of the "Retarded Ages" gibberish in which they hang their faith. And maybe we should say thank you for that. Who knows what nonsense we would have to hear if they actually tried to confront nagging questions about the universe we live in.
It was enough for me to hear what they say when I don't ask for their wisdom.
And Noam, you can certainly afford to look down for a change because I, I'm sorry to tell you, do not make eye contact or roll my eyes at anyone in any way and under any circumstances: my words are direct and honest.
And you are also allowed to think to really understand.
All the best.
to Q
Please explain to us your perception of time
You messed up again, in vain.
Your response shows an empty pretentiousness, a bigot pulled from the sleeve without further deepening the scripture.
So, he who laughs last laughs.
And there is no need for you to call Q at all.
My comments were in response to Shahar's words, and were not intended for you at all.
Michael's opinion, yes, is important to me even if you dismiss every main point, because despite everything there is a kind of 'talk' between us, which for me is: constructive and fruitful despite the frictions and paradoxes.
You have the whole Saturday to laugh... all the best :)
to Q
As I have already mentioned, you are smarter than Einstein, and all the great scientists who followed him until today.
The most basic statement of the special theory of relativity is the absence of absolute time - not as we perceive it (when we are having fun or feeling bad for example), but simply not all time is equal. Time is not as equal as you thought, and moreover, events that appear to one observer at the same time, will appear to another observer who is in relative motion not at the same time.
This is not a joke but a solid fact and there are countless proofs and practical applications for this (a small example is the GPS systems which, if this result had not been taken into account, would have been much less accurate), another example: the lifetime of subatomic particles is much longer when they are in fast motion, and this Not because it's fun for them).
I'm sure it won't dampen your appetite for baseless nonsense,
But there's nothing to talk about, your infatuation with word combinations that have no connection and meaning, while rolling your eyes to the sky at the theft of ideas, is indeed quite entertaining.
And Q, please spare us your explanation of the contradiction between your opinion and Einstein's opinion on the nature of time - it will only be for your benefit
I propose to open another section in science, as part of the streamlining process, for the satisfaction of all those who claim to speak in the name of "compromise between science and spirituality." All those who really care about the education of the country's residents will not interfere in this section, so you will have a free hand to say whatever comes to your mind, as long as they do not react and slaughter other sections.
The new division of sections will be:
– Space and astronomy
– environment and ecology
– Computing and technology
– Biology and medicine
– Society and history
- Science in Israel
- Nonsense
I don't need to expand on which section is only for you, right?
Thank you Hugin for continuing your response, because all I have left to say is:
Rest my case...
I don't think I've read so much crap in such a short time. I promise you (promise/not promise/ bloated with noble gases,,,,,) that I had a tear in my eye (really!) at some point from laughter. The only thing that marred this humorous moment was a feeling of pity... Do you really spend your life thinking like this?!
Dawn:
What is the time now, at this moment? (Let's say, 15:19 or any given time X) that is: the value of 'time' does not change and its rate also pulsates in the same measuring way.
The only thing that changes is the accepted/ordinary perception of it: the value of 'time' which is by its nature a constant pulsing...tick-tock.
It is possible that in other times and as in ancient times the same 'time-value' will be referred to according to different given measurements, but time is the same 'time'.
It was so and so it will be even if there is some kind of illusion of distortion in its value.
Measurement can be done by earth clock, or sun or moon, or according to any gram to which a rotation or pointer is attributed, or a pointer. This includes the electronic rotations/in the adapter.
In any case, you and I and we all live on Earth and this is the reference point to which and from which we relate as living people: past-present-future.
In order to understand "vague" ideas, you have to understand all kinds of other things.
Time is not continuous. Time is a dimension of perception.
As we experience "time" in a different way and at a different speed depending on whether the experience is fun or stressful, etc.
At deeper levels of perception, lower frequencies of the brain waves, we are able to "grab" different parts of reality and also of time.
Reality does not end in the 4th dimension of time, only the physical reality that we experience with the help of our "standard" senses.
In accordance with all this, it can be concluded that the physical plane is a plane of experience and therefore we cannot see the image from higher up because it would harm our experience.
Also in the context of time, on the physical plane, it moves fractally.
A fractal is a shape in which each small unit that makes it up is identical to the one it makes up, only on a different scale. (for example cauliflower)
At the beginning of time, evolution moved slowly and each process took many millions of years.
Nowadays, time accelerates and processes advance at a much higher speed.
If you look at the pyramid you will see that the foundations are big and solid but as you climb up the steps get smaller.
This is also how time is structured according to the Maya.
By the way, the Chinese also believe this and as they say... a billion Chinese are not wrong.
And from this point you can begin to assign a time value also in the Darwinian evolutionary method from microscopic-and nano-nano-nano creatures as much as possible up to larger grams to larger internal/external rotations and estimate a 'time' figure per hour.
But again, time actually remains the same value: time = constant eternal beats, albeit evolutionary in nanocycles to macro-macrocycles of beats and retreats, accordingly.
Maybe complicated,, but something like that,,:)
Tell me, Noam, what expectations do you have of the particle experiment at Tsern? What is the purpose of its nature at all? Do you have an ambition to understand something from all the experiments we conduct?
What is the purpose of all our studies, and what is progress in your opinion or understanding?
to dawn,
I'm really trying to get to the bottom of your mind, but what is this:
"If we were in the past and in the future, the consequences of our choices would be revealed and canceled and therefore it is necessary to gain experiences on the physical level" ??????????????????????????? ??
to Q
As above, but what is it:
"Because he is a 'template' permanent and intelligent foundations and all that we are. But!!! it has a core = spirit - an inner fire within it readable: nobility / noble gases bearing eternal memory and recognition = rest of spirit and all that is implied by that" ??????????????????
Do you both understand what you wrote?
Remember: vague formulations do not indicate lofty ideas.... usually the opposite
Michael:
Again, the question in the article 'Does Darwinism need protection'? and my response to the matter: no.
Questions that repeat themselves and come out of this discussion: does creationism need protection? And my reference: no.
Does the New Age or whatever it is called, need protection? And my response: no.
Do the 'speakers in the name of science' need protection? And my reference: no
Does 'nature' need protection? And my reference: it wouldn't hurt for all of us to start treating it with all the respect and awe it deserves, because it is a 'template' for permanent and rational foundations and all that we are. But!!! it has a core = spirit - an inner fire within it readable: nobility / noble gases bearing eternal memory and recognition = the rest of spirit and all that is implied by that.
This.
Regarding your previous response: 205
I think that the whole matter of raising immigration in your response is nothing more than stirring up the cauldrons that wasted their time but were very true to their time and therefore their place is respected as historical documentation.
It is possible that of all the 'written' data during the longest history, it must be taken into account, like today, that there may be situations of various mutations in the bodies being studied. And not much different from today's science, for the same subject being studied there are conflicting documents and documents, but also overlapping and compatible ones that confirm or verify their correctness.
And Noam: thank you:))) from the bottom of my heart.
I am "happy" that you have already included me in the New Age block. ("at yours")
In any case, regarding the passage you quoted, I am not convinced of the context in which it appeared,
In addition, the author links several things that are not necessarily clear from such a short passage.
It can even be said that these are metaphors designed to draw a more abstract concept.
In my opinion, the bottom line sums up the issue regarding our perception of reality.
Human perception is dual. Divided into 2. Good and bad, right and left.
This can be seen in the separation between the lobes of the brain.
By nature, we seek polarity. We decide every moment about everything whether it is good for us or bad for us, whether we embrace it or repress it.
Are we "scientists" or New Agers, creationists versus Darwinists, etc., etc.
The very fact of constantly choosing one of the sides, places us in one position (position) and not in several positions (superposition).
Meaning, we are able to perceive only one reality in each period of life.
Only one point in the timeline - the present.
If we were also in the past and the future, the consequences of our choices would be revealed and canceled, so it is necessary to gain experiences on the physical level.
at dawn-
The discussion here is not about the moral side of science, although it is an interesting discussion.
The moral issue is not what differentiates the two, and everything can be used in different directions.
The discussion here, in my humble opinion, is about the correct and effective way to advance human knowledge.
Please clarify how you distinguish in New Age between charlatans and real ones.
The principles of the scientific method ensure that over time, charlatans fall and disappear from the fields of science.
How's that for you?
And do you think the passage I quoted (193) is serious or charlatan?
And if he is serious - please clarify what it means
to Q
I run to congratulate you on your birthday/not your virtual or real birthday, your awkward words,,,:) prevented my weak understanding to,,/,, realized that you do celebrate/not celebrate your birthday
Congratulations. May you live until 120
"Science" - Med-De. The measure of how much we (as humanity) know.
If we do not know something (absolute cabbage) it does not mean that it does not exist.
By the way, in New Age, because the field has been broken, there are a lot of charlatans and intellectuals. Not everyone who talks about "energies" knows what they are talking about...
Regarding religion, I reject any institution that preaches one opinion and inhibits growth.
To all those who cry out about acts done in the name of religion, I remind you that perverted acts have also been done in the name of science, starting with their cruel experiments on humans (and animals), through the electrocution of the mentally ill and the finale:
The Second World War did not take place in the name of religion, but in the name of progress.
Race theory is a scientific theory (albeit extreme and satanic) that is based on scientific principles and strives for "advance".
In conclusion, good and bad are everywhere, even for science inhumane and no less cruel applications (atom bomb)
The real debate is about the question of "power versus ethics"
What use do we make of our knowledge and accumulated power.
Shabbat Shalom.
I'm currently more interested in "we", but I also wondered about this.
It reminds one of the tendency of "trollism", and indeed it is hard to resist the temptation despite the sign at the entrance that says "don't feed the troll".
Another thing, I wonder if you, Hugin, "play around and play" with the language even when speaking? Just pure curiosity
Hugin:
If you read this discussion and others, you will easily come to the conclusion that in every discussion in which you participate - either your responses are ignored or you are dragged into a war of blasphemy and slander.
You are almost never involved in a substantive discussion because you don't say anything substantive.
I don't believe you enjoy it, so the question is why you do it to yourself and to us.
And a small thing:
You are just a virtual phenomenon passing by a cold and alienated monitor just as I am a virtual phenomenon as a very tiny part of all the phenomena of life. Even if it seems that the virtual media currently has a hold on a unique phenomenon in the consciousness of 'science and the wisdom of the minds' and as if on the whole of the world media we should put the exaggerations in proportion between us.
Good Day
All the best:)
Noam:
If you would understand, you would at least wish me a happy birthday :) Or? In case the matter is much simpler, you are not noble. :) In general:)
Your education, if you can be defined as you try to be proud of nothing, is worth as the skin of garlic.
I enjoy curling up and playing with my lips. That's the point. It's in my blood. All the best to you, Naamal', Toph?
To Shahar and Q
Please see (193),
Although critical, I'm still struggling to understand, your help is appreciated
(Of course, in addition to the explanation, a little evidence wouldn't hurt either...)
to Q
And by the way, the most common response to what you write is: "I didn't understand your words"
Of course, one cannot completely rule out the possibility that the depth of your understanding is so great that we are all absolute zeros next to you :),,,.
At the time there was an amusing saying about it (to me anyway):
"She is smarter than Einstein... Einstein was understood by only 3-4 people in the whole world, nobody understands her...
to Q
Easy correction: using Hebrew words does not make your language Hebrew.
I have nothing but to repeat and quote a saying that really fits your situation:
"Everyone has the right to be ignorant and ignorant, (even if he wraps it up with high and strange words)
And everyone has the right to do as much as they can to remain that way"
There is no doubt that you make extensive use of these rights...
And for the avoidance of doubt, this really doesn't bother me, maybe it makes me smile a little 🙂
Some things from reality (that you cannot argue with):
In the Torah it is written that the rabbit and the hare chew the cud.
In nature - the rabbit and the rabbit do not rummage.
In the Torah it is written that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source.
In nature - the Euphrates and the Tigris emerge from places very far from each other.
Sages thought that lice were created from human sweat.
In nature, lice are not created by human sweat.
Sages thought that the trachea of the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver.
Nature laughs at them.
Sages thought that mice were created from the dead.
Nature continues to roll with laughter.
Sages say that the Torah was passed down from generation to generation from the days of Moses to the present day.
In the Bible it is written that this is not true and that in the days of Josiah no one knew the Torah.
Sages thought that the carnivorous animals cast poison from their claws.
No animal does that.
Sages thought that the heart has three chambers.
Sages probably did not know how to count.
..................... ..
..................... ..
There are many more such facts in reality that you cannot argue with.
One of them is, of course, the reality that you are not arguing - actually you are arguing.
Michael:
If reality is not disputed: these are living facts in the field.
And about the tall one? Everything in its time.
And as for the low? Everything in its time.
This is a welcome reality.
And thank you for the funny compliment, I got it :)
To the supplier:
She's funny enough as well
You will have to strain your neck and your eyes a lot to look at a place that is so high above you
To the skeptic: Thank you for the blessings! It's true. :) Auto,, 90 more minutes. I'll be full :jubilee+4:)
Michael:
I'll still keep trying to figure out how low you can pull trailers.
We are lucky that you do not represent the real science in our everyday life.
Hugin:
Why do you find it appropriate to repeat things that Shahar has already said and Oren, in response 194, has already translated into Hebrew?
For response number 196, I only have to say:
Confused? Us too 🙂
*Please write an article:
"Do the fools need protection from science.
Congratulations to Q! Well done to you for being born exactly today a few years ago, even I haven't been able to do it yet! Just so you know that I thought of giving you a gift: I thought of writing in the name of Michael R. (formerly Michael) and then write knowing that after much thought I agree with you and thank you for making me see beyond my narrow vision... but I'm afraid that no one would understand the joke so I'm just giving the gift of my thought to do so... enjoy 🙂
I didn't intend to forward this comment, but since Michael jumped to be happy about the right of cancellation, here is my response:
Noam:
I worded your definition: as 'in your opinion and your time' was completely calculated.
Readable: This is your opinion on the definition of science as you understand it to be acceptable or correct for today = by the hour = now = in these times: method, method, method.
So it's good for you, that you don't have or have an opinion or a method, the main thing is that you systematically enjoy visiting a scientific website and whipping up a method (or rather an opinion) even about things that you are not knowledgeable about but are only saturated with ignorance or knowledge about them and certainly do not know in an educated manner And I tried their methods and their fruits.
And Oren:
You were wrong again, she went and I was actually lucky, because I was born into the depths of the heart of this night many, many years ago. :)
Say hello to your master, the scientific light-seeker Michael, and calm down a bit, Goel?
By the way, there is no need to make an effort to understand my Hebrew language.
And Michael: It really doesn't matter anymore,,,the main thing is that you are not alone,,,in the kingdom of darkness that you have built for yourself and you have supporters (I wonder where they were during the elections,,eh? :) 😉 😕
Pine:
Thanks for the blessings and thanks even more for the help.
Noam's and your comments contributed to the matter quite a bit.
Although I would have preferred that Haggin admit outright that there is no truth she is willing to accept from science if it contradicts her blind faith, but also silence as an admission.
I would also be happy if she retracted her lie about my conversation with Gogil and admitted that he was actually the one who attacked me and not the other way around, but my expectations are probably excessive. Some people don't care about the facts.
The truth is that here we make an easy life for ourselves because the readership here is mostly sane. Discussions on Oy and Net are much more difficult and discussions in ultra-Orthodox rooms are generally impossible to enter because of the censorship.
Noam, what didn't you understand? I will translate in the language of one of my childhood heroes - Al Bundy:
"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
I think that pretty much sums up the idea in an understandable way, at least more understandable than all the other times I've seen people on the site trying to convey some kind of "New Age" message.
Indeed, the value of the "New-Age" (retarded-Age?) people should not be underestimated 🙂
to dawn,
As one who deepens the New Age, I would appreciate it if you could explain to an ignorant person like me the following passage taken from one of the many New Age websites (my free translation - I hope I didn't miss it):
"The energy transmitted in the universe at any time communicates with the crystals that were discovered in the depths of the Great Pyramid in Egypt (a discovery that for unknown reasons was hidden from the public). As a result, a duality is created in the consciousness that originates from the flow that comes from Saturn, and is found in a straight line with the Mayan pyramids.
At the same time, already hundreds of years ago, the Mayan people discovered that there are clear energetic blockages, which originate from a huge force emanating from the center of the earth.
These blockages make it difficult to see being beyond the private immediate experience."
I didn't understand the idea anyway
at dawn:
You wrote: "Every significant evolutionary development, a "leap" forward to progress, from the first cell to the age of the Internet, and everything is beautifully synchronized with a board created hundreds of years ago. "
Apparently you decided to illustrate to all of us what New Age nonsense is.
What are you talking about? What synchronicity do you find between the Internet and the Mayan calendar?
Not every combination of words guarantees that a sentence has meaning.
To Q: The scientific method is not a matter of opinion and time, it is clearly defined, although it takes some effort to understand (and I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject). The need to state "this is your opinion" indicates the extent of your bias - it's a shame, it's worth making an effort on the subject.
Michael, should I wish you good luck?
This week you exhausted both Hugin and "somewhere from somewhere". I don't want to open up here, but maybe I've fallen short of your goal and there's still hope for change?
Noam:
Well, 'Toff': the main thing is that you found a way to explain to my point-of-view what 'science' is, in your opinion and at your time.
Michael:
Okay, I need a temporary reprieve from you.
I'm tired of your decisive statements
And I will add that it was your conversation with Gogil that illustrated to me even more strongly, within the limitations of the Internet of course, that you collided for the good of science with the wrong people.
Those who delve deeper into "New Age" will discover that, as in everything, there is evolution here as well.
Knowledge that was preserved thousands of years ago is being re-evaluated and further deepened in recent years and leads to additional discoveries, needless to say that these do not appear in the popular science monthlies.
For example, we can mention Carl J. Calleman's research that actually verified the concept of time of the Mayan calendar.
Every significant evolutionary development, a "leap" forward to progress, from the first cell to the internet age, all perfectly synchronized with a board created hundreds of years ago.
Science is based on surviving studies, if someone makes a historical discovery but does not publish it, it will not be possible to base the rest of the research further on his discovery, obviously.
In the same way, thanks to technology and enlightened thinking, parallels can be found today between religions and teachings of peoples who lived far from each other but nevertheless believed in similar principles.
Makes me think
Hugin:
You have no problems with science - you only have problems with anything that conflicts with your blind faith.
Science does this and the theory of evolution - as I told Gogil and as your words prove - is the main battleground.
I'm interested, by the way, if there is any topic about which you are ready to say something like "Okay - here I see that science is right and religion was wrong". I am not claiming that there is no subject on which you are willing to say this - I simply do not know because I have never heard such a sentence from you.
to Q
You wrote that you have no problem with science - and there is no doubt that it is so.
In order for you to have a problem with something, you need to understand what that thing is, and in everything related to science and especially the scientific method - you have no idea.
You wrote: "The reversal that Darwin's teachings created through the concept of science is not at all and essentially different from all other teachings/that have become religions and others"
Amazing superficiality, you brought the scientific method, religion and the New Age under the same blanket, and knowingly stated that they are one and the same.
Contrary to your impression, science does not firmly state anything, it does not have a fixed opinion, and it changes its mind often.
The abysmal difference is the scientific method, this is the method in which science separates the chaff from the chaff, between grandmother's stories and old lady gossip, and solid and reliable information.
The scientific method does make it difficult for those who are looking for an easy way to blossom new ideas into the future, without any need for testing and substantiation. And thus of course he upsets those who enjoy using vague sentences about souls and consciousness and cacti and crystals, and other spirit and cards, and neuron fuses, and unmeasurable energies and auras around people, and stars that determine our fate, and more and more.
Indeed, the scientific method makes it difficult for the people who are looking for an easy way to impress with strange ideas, but what can be done, there is currently no better method - and this is in the test of the result.
Pine
I have no problem if the science! Period!
Coincidentally, the conversation is being conducted here in the context of a hot article in an even hotter man named 'Darwin' and its implications for the conceptions of the sciences following him, and for all the niches that evolved from it.
There is no need to build towers, towers on the destruction that took place.
Perhaps you should take into account that the virtual conversations are blind by nature and there is no need to drift.
All the best.
And Michael:
Leave, it doesn't matter.
It's good that you distort the translation from intolerance to cruelty...
And the meaning here is that as long as certain beliefs do not allow themselves the ability to accept progress and truth (that is, to come to terms with reality) there is danger in them, because they may in the name of their faith harm those who do not believe and accept their opinions.
You say we are tough because of science, but you are blinded and blind because of your faith. And yes, you hurt people. If not physically then educationally. You may prevent minds "on the fence" from making a mistake and accepting your belief because you present them as a scientifically based truth and therefore subtract from them and from us unfulfilled potential from their ability to learn and discover things.
And you also hurt them physically. That same one may reject medical treatment believing that his or a particular healer's internal energies are all the body needs.
But just simple examples of how blind faith can harm a person even without him being diverted/advancing a physically violent believer in the name of his faith. But of course you don't care...
Hugin:
I thought about it and it's not true.
Michael:
"Sparing the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful":
Have you ever thought about it? That you may never know what is cruel or merciful in each of us and who and what the heart of the matter takes us in turn?
This is why tolerance, which means seeing the whole round in many corners and faces, pays off in the end.
and Noam and Oren:
There's no need to get carried away, you don't have to understand anything, not punctuation, not legal, etc., etc.
Thanks.
Toph Noam?
to Q
Please don't be offended, but I admire,,,.//..) your talent,,..?) to compress a ,,,, maximum amount of words -) into a minimum amount of ideas,,,..,
I read several times,,,, what you wrote (176) and I finally realized that you have questions and doubts?!?!
Well tuff…..
And by the way, for your information,, when I read the empty musings of the New Age people,,, I am forced to believe in the reincarnation of souls,,,, because it is not possible for someone to accumulate so much nonsense in one lifetime...
By the way, I apologize in advance for the pronunciation mistakes, I still need to work on my "blind typing" 🙂
This manifests itself especially when I am very passionate about a certain subject and then I press "send" before going over what I wrote
To Hogin, N.B.
The nature of my answer to section A is the same as my answer to section B - I have no idea what you were trying to say. Maybe you would if you threw less complicated and less philosophical sentences (and less commas 😉 ) it would help. On the other hand, it might make you try to be clear and that's not what you're trying to strive for, right? On the contrary, obscurity is your last hope. As you know, "confuse the enemy" is a tactic that is applied in many fields, especially when you don't have the upper hand.
Hugin,
I'm not sure I agree with your section B, which comes to agree with what I wrote (at least according to what you say) because I didn't really understand what you were trying to say. In order for me to be able to tell you that you have indeed changed my mindset, I need to understand what you were trying to say before.
Your section C is just an example of you reading people's words but not internalizing them. There was a sarcasm in his sentence that probably went over your head.
As usual, you looked for the flaws in other people's words so thoroughly that you didn't notice (if you even had such an intention) to internalize the writer's message and only saw what you wanted.
If you invested as much as you invest in finding flaws in participating in a real research process - which includes reading the background in depth, understanding it and internalizing it, and only then start thinking about additional directions or expanding the existing one, and all this in an in-depth, long and difficult process - you would understand what a conclusion from a process really is of scientific research and perhaps contributing to the world. I personally have little experience in academic research, but this little only made me appreciate the difficulties more. Even in small and insignificant research like I was involved in, I ran into many walls and things that I could not explain. But believe me, I did not try to "force" on these phenomena explanations that would suit me, even and even especially, phenomena that contradicted my basic assumptions.
You learn from everything, even when you find out that you are wrong. I hope that one day you and others will be able to internalize this. Something that is all basic in science.
You are unable to admit that you were wrong, or that others were right (which is worse, I don't know) for fear that the ground you stand on will disappear.
Hugin:
I don't accept your words but I'm tired of the pointless argument with you.
Interpret it however you want and later you can also make any comment you want.
There is simply a limit to what I am willing to invest in fooling around.
Michael,
I don't want to drift into politics, but this quote fits a very difficult problem in our country. Especially in light of the last war and the existence of preachers against it.
You are welcome to ignore this response of mine (and it is even recommended 🙂 ), because I personally do not tolerate politics and in addition it will divert us from the real purpose of the site, which is the expansion of knowledge and the truth. And we all know that in politics there is no single truth.
Michael:
A. The 'questions' or perplexities' that I raise also provoke me to think further.
And without denying, and maybe it's also the human heart,, opacity of any kind: emotional, mental, conceptual, patterns, my opinion really, really inspires me to ask the questions, that is: my neuronal fuse lights up,, that's how it wakes up and with such a pulse it reacts,,,, among other things In amazement! Then comes the answer, then an answer, and then of course you are annoying again,, and then your fans answer,, and then you answer in your own way, which is sometimes also lacking in 'fundamental infantilism' and so on,,
B. See Oren's response accordingly (this time in the affirmative): he immediately freed himself at that moment to observe and raise the question 'from within' and answered according to the truths of his knowledge/or the recognition of ignorance
and expressed his understanding of the matter accordingly, if this is the case: it is called, 'a learning and thinking process' which is a first condition for 'scientific research', everything else comes with time = processes = values of evolution, etc.
C. If so, what did you want to express in your response that contradicts the essence of bewilderment and denies the wisdom process?? And does a person study to receive Nobel prizes?? Or is there something of deeper and more internal value than any money, certificate, prestige, etc., etc. ,,,,,
Well, don't be offended this time and for a change, this was a practical illustration.
Or, is it my opinion again, as usual, like your way of casually pulling out and canceling anything that does not contain the expression 'the special admiration for you and your 'scientific' way, is not considered,, and 'there is nothing to judge in it',,,
More on:
http://www.geocities.com/sande106/ART6.pdf
Something from Karl Popper's words to broaden the horizons of the preachers of tolerance towards religion. Note that this is a long version of the sentence "He who shows mercy to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful"
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even though those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all arguments; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade as criminal.
at dawn:
You wrote: "The world moves like a pendulum between science and religion at each new stage"
What is this nonsense? Where have you seen such a pendulum?
Religion is constantly retreating in the face of the progress of science
What's beautiful about the NEW Age (which is a cover for the Old Age) is that it is possible to bloom without any effort meaningless nonsense, while hoping that these empty formulations will hide the ignorance and emptiness. Every strange and baseless idea has turned into a sublime musing for you.
The scientific method requires much harder work: you have to establish, prove and perform experiments, research and devote a lot of time to new ideas.
It is no wonder that the New Age did not bring even one discovery, nor did it deepen knowledge easily.
The New Age is a retro of thousands of years to humanity's way of obtaining knowledge and information, and no vague wording can hide this.
I don't know, I can only speak for myself and I think I don't look bad at all 😉
Regarding your question, I think it is a positive thing that a person is objectively impartial of opinions, that is, he is an objective person who is willing to hear new opinions and ideas regardless of where they came from. Such a person who is also a scientist or a believer in the scientific method simply requires a foundation for things. If there is sufficient proof with examples in the field and that this is acceptable, then he will be ready to accept the ideas. Or at least consider them. And he will accept the ideas not because of the person who presented them (although it helps if he has a reliable and serious background in his studies), no matter what his religion, race, etc.
Hugin:
You are not waiting for anyone in the world
Hugin:
I don't expect anything from you, but this is what you said that "only the question remains" and so I showed you that this claim of yours (which is a claim and not a question) is a wrong claim.
So what do you answer? That I shouldn't have expected you to ask everything at once. Did I write that I expected you to ask everything at once? After all, all I said is that there is no reason to define a question that is not the only question as the only question.
Of course you don't have an answer to that, so you put another question in my mouth.
And what do you write next?
You are trying to write ironically about the fact that I am trying to create a presentation as if I know the answers to these questions when I have not claimed such a thing either and it takes a really twisted thought to conclude it.
I have no answer to these questions. You don't either, but you claim to know how I would act if I knew the answer. This is another example of a thought devoid of any logic.
If I knew the answers to these questions I would not blame you for anything. I was just going to celebrate getting four Nobel Prizes.
Of course, regarding the last series of questions, the answer to which I don't know, but you should know - you didn't bother to answer, so I repeat it like this:
Why did you raise all the questions you raised? Why did you think only they remained? What do you want us to conclude from the fact that you don't know the answer to them?
If, as Oren says: "This is what is beautiful about science, it is impartial", then wonder, what about those who 'speak in his name'?
In addition Shahar, you can perhaps feel safe and full of hope that if in the future science discovers something that is indeed compatible with some of the illusions (sorry, facts for you) from your faith or from other beliefs (such as the Tanakh, etc.), then I and probably Michael will also accept the same revelations as truth ( As long as the theory is well established and until a new theory arrives that explains more fully 🙂 ).
But as long as people try to reach "discoveries" or establish something of their beliefs in a non-scientific way, it's just a waste of their resources and ours.
If it bothers you so much that science doesn't take you seriously then just sit still. Because if there is any truth in your beliefs then the coming science will get to it eventually, even if not in your lifetime. But what is certain, it will not be in the way of compromises. Certainly not in a "spiritual way" and even if, for example, it turns out that extraterrestrials have visited Earth, for example, science will not begin to take for granted that we communicate with them through the exchange of energies or something like that. Unless it turns out otherwise too 🙂
That's the beauty of science, it's impartial. Objective, clean, and its purpose is to search for the truth and not to please the belief, feelings or intentions of the researcher or the communities of the world.
Because of this fact, well-established scientific discoveries made by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Christian scientists eventually become public domain - regardless of their differences of opinion in other areas. Everyone shares the fruits of science.
Lenaam and Michael:
If the scientific method is the 'essence' of your life and contributes to your understanding of the phenomena of life and yourself, no one stands in your way, on the contrary.
and Noam:
To enlighten you in advance:
Just as it is difficult to ignore the simple fact that we are inherent in monkey genes by nature, it is also difficult to ignore the fact that we are similar to them, full of 'mimicry', isn't it? and the involuntary) is intertwined with us and maybe with me it is multiplied more?? Due to genetic-rest-of-spirit nature factors and split and different lineage factors? So, the commas and the sign [:)] for example, expresses a smile and humor as a way of expression,, and it is also possible that the 'calmism' in my writing is part of those factors,,
I hope that in your scientific way, like your faith in it, you will be able to understand me, too, someday.
And Michael:
You don't expect that one poor and lonely day they will ask all the questions that you know how to give the D-E-T, do you?
One thing is clear and certain: if you knew all the defiant questions from you, you would not blame me for my words, but simply understand!!
Dawn:
Your words are typical postmodernist gibberish.
Science will not adopt anything from religion.
Even if he reaches conclusions that are in line with certain claims of the religion - it will not be because of the religion but because it will coordinate the observations.
Adopting an idea just because someone thousands of years ago wrote it without any basis (which is why many of the ideas of religion are really crazy) is not a rational act and science practices rationality.
Shahar, I won't say nonsense, because I'm not that kind of person 🙂 But... what are you talking about?
Where was the compromise in Newton's formulation? Or quantum theory?!
The whole idea in science and the scientific method is that there are no compromises, neither in establishing the theory nor in order for the theory to be accepted in a more "plausible" way and not to hurt the feelings of a certain sector.
Science investigates the truth and that's it, and there really are no compromises. This is the problem of the New Age, spirituality, etc. especially compared to religion. The New Age, apparently, is really looking for "compromises" when it disturbs him in the "facts" he accepted as the basis of his faith. This is where the "pseudo-science" came from. A jumble of nonsense put into seemingly scientific jargon, a mixing of half-truth-half-imagination, and all to make it easier for the "spiritual" to accept science or to present himself as a real scientist.
It is the process of the growth of consciousness
First we believe in one thing
We then disprove our belief with a new idea (dis-illusion)
And finally we understand that the 2 poles are part of the same whole.
The world moves like a pendulum between science and religion, and at each new stage, ideas from both sides are adopted and melted into a new approach.
Coming soon... a new theory... "evolution of collective consciousness"
To Michael,
Indeed yes, and I would add that the scientific method itself, contrary to its accepted image, is the most modest and humble of all the teachings and beliefs and religions.
* The scientific method states that it is never possible to prove the truth of a certain theory, but only to disprove it
* The scientific method openly states that not everything is known to science, not everything is explained, but the way and method of obtaining the information is important
* The scientific method and scientists in particular, unlike the various religions, see every new and hitherto unexplained phenomenon as a challenge and not as a threat to their world view
* The scientific method is subject over time, only to the findings and results of experiments - not to rabbis, not to priests, not to dictators, not to practical stories, not to personal experiences (real or imagined) and not to vague and empty formulations
This is the reason that the scientific method is the most successful, and it is the one that contributes to the advancement of human knowledge more than all the other pseudo-scientific beliefs and teachings combined.
Pine:
Your words are correct and I would add another aspect to them that I bring up from time to time.
An understanding of science and the scientific method in general - even without the theory of evolution - may contribute to the humility of a person - even the secular person - if he only notices the following fact:
The scientific method denies man the status of the final arbiter and gives him to experiment.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is and it doesn't matter how many people "bought" it - as soon as it doesn't agree with the findings, it ends up in the garbage can.
Of course, not everyone notices this aspect of science - not even all scientists - and therefore not everyone draws the conclusions.
It is also understood that ultra-Orthodox who are not exposed to science - there is no chance that they will develop this type of modesty.
Hugin:
Regarding your last response (158).
Only these questions are asked?
Let me show you some more questions:
How was the big bang created?
What was before the big bang? Was there a "before"?
How do you reconcile general relativity with quantum theory? Is string theory correct?
Did Lieberman launder money?
Why did you raise all the questions you raised? Why did you think only they remained? What do you want us to conclude from the fact that you don't know the answer to them?
to Q
If you omit all the unnecessary punctuation that for some reason you enjoy sprinkling, and if you try to formulate your words more clearly, maybe a few more people (including me) will understand what you are talking about
Michael,
Your fight against ignorance, religion, spirituality, New Age, pseudo-science and UFO seekers of all kinds, is very important and certainly not hopeless.
It is true that those who grow up on the mental fixation of religion have a very hard time leaving the feeling of warmth and security that religion gives them.
Evolution shocks the bones of the religious person (by the way, it is not clear to me why the age of the universe, which is in such serious contradiction to the Bible, does not cause shock), hence the tremendous efforts to find loopholes and gaps in knowledge.
I would like to quote the writer Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), when asked how to become an atheist:
"I was full of doubts about the idea of God, but I could not create a logical model for myself that would explain the origin of life, for example...
At some point I came across evolutionary biology, mainly in the form in which it was described by Richards Dawkins... It was a stunning concept in its simplicity, but it led naturally to all the wonderful and infinite complexity of the universe.
In view of the awe he inspired in me, the awe that people talk about in the context of religious experiences, seemed silly to me.
I prefer reverence from understanding to reverence from ignorance"
All is well and good Oren, now the only question that remains is what is a 'soul' or 'I am aware' of those evolutionary processes that Darwin tried to instill with brilliant simplicity/modestness, from basic laws of nature.
And aren't there also mental evolution processes/according to the classification of peoples, cultures and varieties accompanying the evolutionary processes.
One last thing. Michael, I just finished reading the article you sent the readers to and I was pleasantly surprised to find that he ends it with the same message I tried to convey in my last comments. It is only clear that in the article the message is conveyed in a single paragraph in a more clear and beautiful way 🙂
Here's the quote:
"The theory of evolution, which changed the face of science, forces man to look from the outside at himself and to re-understand his place in the universe. In the last 150 years, many have used Darwin's name, while creating one or another distorted variation of his words. If I had to choose one word that sums it up for me For the philosophical message in "The Origin of Species", I would choose the word modesty. The theory - just like man - forces us to understand our true place in the universe and in nature. An intelligent, successful, strong animal that rules the world, but in the end, one of a huge family of living creatures."
That's it for now 🙂 I recommend everyone to read the article!
I just wanted to answer my question myself, in case those people don't come up with it, despite my long response that preceded the question. the answer:
You are afraid to find out that you are not as special/chosen as you hoped.
But when you are ready to accept it, you will be able to take the next step and truly set yourself apart in the world by making a real contribution. Go and learn. Read the articles with the aim of witnessing and not looking for flaws to point them out, just because the articles may hurt your feelings and beliefs. After you have learned and acquired Suitable tools, go find more theories and develop the existing ones by using scientific tools. Go implement these ideas in a way that will advance us all.
Or simply - go! 🙂
Michael, I think that part of the problem of the people who cannot accept evolution, and along with it other scientific concepts, is a lack of modesty/humility, at least in a certain area.
Among those who attack knowledge in the name of religion who cannot accept that we descend from the monkey, and that we are no more permitted than any other animal. We did reach impressive achievements as soon as we went through processes that made us develop greater intelligence than other animals, but we are no different from any other animal except for our own achievements. And, luck (although the process of natural selection does not rely solely on luck).
And among those who find it difficult to accept these scientific concepts because they believe that other entities, whether extraterrestrials or other spiritual entities, are the ones who directed us in the evolutionary process (or even skipped this process and created us as we are today), and again - this is also a problem of humility. It is difficult for them to accept that we are not "special", but lucky, and that we did have potential that was realized through a long process of natural selection.
They all have the same problem. They are unable or unwilling to accept the fact that we were not "chosen". We are not special. We are not "the chosen ones".
I do not deny that the idea is tempting, like the idea that I have "special powers", an important destiny, etc. But at a certain point in my life I grew up and learned to differentiate between science fiction and the desire to feel special. Not that each person is not special in his own way. Because after we have opened up intelligence in the evolutionary process, everyone is able to achieve impressive achievements that will contribute to themselves, to others, in expanding knowledge and improving our situation.
But in the actual process you are taking - the almost fanatical preservation of not losing that feeling of "uniqueness" you are missing the chance to invest resources to truly become special through reaching achievements, expanding human knowledge (by using truth and facts and theories that can be established) and educating others (and yourself).
Michael, I almost desperately hope they will be willing to accept this. As I mentioned before, I almost admire your strength to stand by this, when your ultimate goal, which is completely unabsorbed by them, is to help them improve themselves.
I hope that one day you will be brave enough to remove the cloak of arrogance, to have some humility, and to understand that the only way to self-fulfillment is from within you and not by sublime external powers (and the way does not include special powers, at least in the near future 🙂 ).
Don't get me wrong, I do not contradict the existence of God. As a secular Jew and a man of science I am ready to accept the existence of God until proven otherwise. But if God does exist, and he did in some way influence creation, the creation of the first physical laws by which our universe works, etc., I still believe that he works in the ways of science and does not try to impose on us. All you have to do is accept the possibility that God exists, but theories developed in science are still acceptable and correct. Why is it so hard? What are you afraid of?
Here's a link some people need to see more than once:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
Hugin:
Although you don't deserve me to try so hard for you, below is the quote of the relevant part from the link you were unable to open:
Darwin,
A wise man who did not know how to pretend, comes to a crisis of faith at a young age: "I did not easily agree to give up my faith," he writes in his autobiography, "... but gradually I began to understand that the Old Testament - about the false world history stories in it, the story of the Tower of Babel, the way in which she attributes to God the image of a vengeful tyrant - no more reliable than other books, for example of Hindus or barbarians. The more we know about the fixed laws of nature, the less likely miracles seem... Slowly I began to lose my faith. The old idea of natural design, an argument that used to seem absolute to me, has failed since the laws of natural selection were discovered. Everything in nature is a consequence of fixed laws.'
Hugin:
What do I say and what will I speak?
You have demonstrated your tolerance in a collection of gratuitous slurs.
I will continue to talk to you if and when you have something to say.
Michael:
A. I am not able to receive the file you transferred in the meantime.
B. You fight for nothing with the wrong people and miss the big deal.
C. All the quotes were given in the response of your 'blind fan', who wants something blind and called it 'war for the purpose of war - for the purpose of war', the destruction of every 'race' that is not 'science'. Is this called 'science'?
And if indeed, you did not understand 'your glorified Torah' in a bundle of trouble, your meaning in a bundle of trouble, your example in a bundle of trouble and it is not education!! Rather, you have corrupted additional souls / gullible, such as your completely blind admirer of the central person, whose name is: Being a human person!!! A Jewish heart! !!!Human!!!!That's the whole story!Education means, first of all, be tolerant, and patient with the processes (value of time,,) that cannot be ignored but understood,,,understand them,,,every day, moment, moment, hour, hour: this is learning! Meaning: wise and prudent and everything else to expand horizons comes with time with everything in the way of a land and culture of peace in every word, with everyone and to be honest/straightforward/smart/pleasant/lovable/aspires to culture and education and breathes with every moment.
Of course, I'm not fighting for the same issue, just now the topic came up between us after I was horrified by your recent responses to Gogil:: that not only is he by chance also seeking education and moderate progress, but also bread without a choice (completely by accident?) while we were here bragging about our knowledge, and not You even had the sensitivity comma to express empathy/vice versa. But you, of course, are allowed to tell about yourself, me of course and everyone else (I hope!!)
Again, I'm sure you don't pay attention, simply: 'Not paying attention'!! This is probably the problem, because those who pay attention, observe, and when they observe, we become wise and understanding, but it's also a matter of 'making time' = process = value of time = the value of life, an opportunity that everyone deserves regardless of who they are.. their level, and the process of their development in the different stages! and at the rhythms given by each one.
Isn't this evolution?????? among other things,,,
Darwin is already dead, there is no need to kill others for the Torah he left. But we - all of us, are living people!!
And want the joy of life and not black opal prophecies such as oh oh oh, of any kind, including anxious sciences.
Hugin:
And they accuse me of gagging.
So what, tell me please, only defamatory comments pass your censorship?
The long/Jewish nose,,,smells,,
,, smells pure Aryan fragrances mixed,, in Torah, the race: 'purity!!
"I hope that one day we will get rid of such reactions, and that too without the use of filters that are not politically correct",,,! With you!! The revered !!, in your war against ignorance, religion, spirituality, pseudo-science and UFO seekers of all kinds" those of faith/alternative!!!
Response 146 is being used as a 'flag', hey hey Michael.
********************************
It wasn't a dream??? Reply 146/146/146/146
146 The proof will remain forever,,,,,They worked so cleanly,,so cleanly,,,,,,worked hard!! Where did your strength come from?! His student asks,,,(in the science of the Land of Israel!!!)
*******************************
No, that's not what Michael meant either, but that's what comes out when you don't see consciously and deeply, deeply, deeply
Hugin:
A quote from Darwin's autobiography that I think answers your question quite well can be found
In Dodi Goldman's article In issue 2 of Odyssey.
The quote begins at the end of the first paragraph on the right, with the words "not easily"
Thank you, Oren.
It's nice to see that there are also those who understand and appreciate.
On second thought - maybe that's exactly the point - only those who understand can appreciate.
There are those who, when they don't understand, bare their teeth and then - when they get punched with those teeth, they compare the feeling to a toothache.
They also try to shut up anyone who contradicts their false claims by calling him a "mouthpiece" and scornfully calling criticism of their words "contempt."
My strength stems from a feeling of having no choice, on the one hand, and from the feeling that there is still a chance, on the other hand.
Of course, the brainwashed debaters here have no chance of convincing, but I assume that there are also young readers who are still on the fence and I hope that my persistence will make them come down from it on the right side.
We talked about education, as I recall. Some are just talking about it. I also try to do.
Michael, I strengthen your hand in your war against ignorance, religion, spirituality, pseudo-science and UFO seekers of all kinds. I really admire your firm stand, even though you have no chance of victory, in the war of attrition that is being waged here against you and against the minds of the innocent readers whom they are trying to wash.
I enjoy reading the articles and the smart comments (I emphasize the smart ones, not the ones you listed above) that add to my knowledge and my understanding of the universe around me.
I'm sorry that instead of focusing on intellectual discussions you and others are forced to waste their resources and mental powers confronting those who care to hinder the spread of knowledge (whether they do it consciously or those who hide behind complete belief in their ignorance, what they call "faith/alternative").
I hope that one day we will get rid of such comments, and that too without the use of filters that are not politically correct, because I still do not believe in gagging, but it is starting to tire and exhaust me. And I still avoid getting into these conflicts (Michael, where do your powers come from?!)
Google: interesting logical deduction :)
Michael: As for your response to me last night, I would be lying if I said that your opinion is not interesting at times. I understand that Gogil also enjoys your responses, but probably, most of us prefer to 'rub our hands',, in the offensive dose - the 'Torni',,,,:)
(Okay, don't say that I don't explain :)
And by the way, I wonder what Darwin would have said about the 'battles of the minds in the name of 'his' evolution', surely he too would have wringed his hands, but as far as I understood he was not Jewish, so, I'm not exactly clear what kind of humor he had ,,If any:)
😉 😉
Michael.
As you said, don't bother yourself, don't waste your time and don't read my comments.
I will miss the discussion with you like a toothache.
Q:
you were right The debate revolved, among other things, about tolerance (and not on my initiative).
The difference between tolerance and laxity is…
Laxity is the inability to respond, passivity, characteristic of the weak
Tolerance is a choice not to react, activity in other ways, characterizes the strong.
Fascists accuse the tolerant of laxity.
Fascists dismiss criticism of them with contempt.
Fascists try to shut up.
It seems to me that you are not a fascist 😉
Hugin:
Your opinion really doesn't matter to me
Michael: And how or how to name or describe the entirety of your response/and your other responses?
I think black wearers all over the world think almost like you.
Google:
You just don't understand what you are being told.
The debaters are not arguing because of the title but because of their reasons.
When I tell you why I litigate you have no authority to say that my reasons are different.
Has such a simple fact disappeared from you or are you just stubborn?
In conclusion - you do create a presentation as if the discussion is about evolution, when as an individual who has the authority to determine what I am debating about, I tell you that this is not the case.
Now keep arguing!
What do you mean by "focus on fighting fundamentalism"?
These are just jumbled words. Do you even know what I'm focusing on? Does the fact that I fight fundamentalism mean that I focus on it? Not only does your conclusion not follow from the facts on which it is based, but it is also incorrect. Fact. I don't think I would have made as much profit as I do if I had focused on fighting fundamentalism. Nor would I be able in such a case to turn to the war announcing boycotts because you are only preaching when I am actually engaged in it.
And how do you think it is possible to "leave him behind"?
Another word hash. Get in the car, start it, put it in gear and leave fundamentalism behind. You may leave it behind but since it is everywhere it will stay both in front and where you are.
I explained to you that there is nothing to look for in the improvement of the education system in science and I thought you would understand my intention, but it turns out that your desire to argue really blinds you.
Will you look for the improvement in the education system in the grocery store as well? What about your plumber? Will you also come to him with allegations that he fixes pipes instead of taking care of the education system?
The knowledge site became an issue as soon as you complained that the discussions on it do not constitute an improvement of the education system even though there is no possibility that the discussions on it will be an improvement of the education system. This is actually a claim that the site is not what it is not.
But in our way - you will continue to preach to others and I will try to find real solutions.
Even in the recent discussion here on the subject of education, you did not see fit to participate
https://www.hayadan.org.il/sylabuses-didnt-chage-for-tewnty-years-0802096/
But you are welcome to read my comments 6 and 7 there.
You legitimized Islam.
You explained to us that the situation there is improving all the time and you told us how he supported education in the beginning.
The first claim is incorrect and the second is irrelevant because it talks about a different Islam.
There is no point in detailing the differences and their reasons here, but I hope you will be able to understand for yourself that today's Islam is as far from that Islam as East is from West.
Therefore, this is not just about giving legitimacy, but about the willingness to distort reality in order to do so.
In your confused discussion about technological progress and its prevention (as if it was ever discussed here) versus dealing with the real problem which is as you define "Muslim rule (???? Wait! Maybe you decide? Is Islam a problem or not? Would you be talking about Muslim rule if it was not a part of Islam from the problem?) just illustrates your lack of purpose. Are you saying that the Muslim rule needs to be replaced? Why don't you do it?
It's great that you encourage technological progress. To remind you that the discussion here began with the opposition you expressed here to the efforts people are making to redeem some lost souls from the scientific and technological backwardness. To me, it doesn't really look like encouraging technological progress, but even if you did it by mistake, your boasting that you are in favor of technological progress is also trying to create the impression that others are not when it is clear that the opposite is true.
I do not determine anything about your behavior profile.
For my part, it could be that you are an atomic scientist who moved to live on the moon because he was tired of the ultra-Orthodox and the Muslims.
I am only talking about your words here. There is no need for you to drag the wife and children to the reserve in their knowledge.
I repeat. I don't have a problem with energy resources and the science website is just one of the shocks in which I work to promote what I think is right to promote.
You keep saying that what I think is right to promote is also what you think, so I repeat and ask you - stop bothering me and wasting my time (and your time) trying to explain to me what I should spend my time on.
And Hugin:
What you call tolerance I call laxity.
You don't even understand what the argument is about.
Gogil: With you in the sane tolerance you demonstrate on the site, in the existing virtual limitations.
But between us: You were also waiting for Michael's proven juiciness, weren't you? :)
You can continue to claim that you addressed the words - you did not, and no matter how much words you pour it will not change the reality - you did not respond to my criticism!
I don't need to "create a presentation as if the discussion is about evolution" - the title explicitly states this.
Your slogan "fundamentalism is trying to take over..." - again I'm not interested in fundamentalism, I'm interested in progress. Fundamentalism must be left behind and move forward.
I'm not arguing that fundamentalism doesn't track progress, I'm arguing that focusing on war tracks progress as well (the benchmark is to respond but not argue).
I will look for and find the improvement in the education system everywhere - even on the science website. And by the way, what were you trying to argue with that, the science site is not the issue (you are having fun again).
I did not legitimize Islam and even explicitly argued against it - at best you were wrong at worst you lied.
For example, I stated that the Islamic government in Iran is cursed - I invite you to re-examine your conclusions regarding (it would be appropriate if you limited your conclusions to their own words and not to me)
I do not welcome the nuclearization of Iran in the same way that I do not welcome the nuclearization of Pakistan or India (distinguish between technological progress which is welcome and the abuse of technology)
Even though this technological progress may be misused and consume me, the solution is not to stop/prevent technological progress but to address the problem.
I think the problem is the Muslim rule, so it needs to be addressed and replaced.
If I were a demagogue I would argue that your words indicate that technological progress is the problem and must be fought.
So yes, I encourage tolerance towards technological progress but I do not encourage tolerance towards dangerous forms of government.
Therefore, your claim that I encourage tolerance towards lunatics is bullshit (I tried to match the level of the response to the level of the claim)
When you don't have to be tolerant, I'm not tolerant - this was the case in the last operation in which I served as an officer in the reserves and I left my wife and three children at home in Ashkelon without medical equipment in order to fight the madness.
As I said - you don't know me but you give your fingers free rein in determining my behavior profile.
And in addition to your words - I do not ignore the dangers of Islam or the dangers of religion. But I definitely take them in proportion.
In general, I try not to use the word danger but the word problem - psychologically it helps to cope in a better and more rational way (but this is already my personal approach).
And as for the problems arising from the plans of all the extremist bodies on earth - I don't think that the science website is the best platform for a head-on collision for the simple reason of inefficiency. The science website is more effective in transferring knowledge-textual information with few graphics.
Theological debates that also require a certain degree of persuasiveness (beyond the transmission of information) will not exhaust themselves on a web page.
That's why I repeat again, you must respond briefly to the point where necessary, but do not argue.
Google:
My words were definitely referring to your review and you just didn't understand them.
You tried to create a presentation as if the debate is about evolution and that for you there is no point in the effort, while I explained to you that the debate is not about that but about all our ways of life and therefore every effort is worthwhile.
Fundamentalism tries to take over wherever it is given a hold, therefore it must be fought everywhere.
In all your responses it is evident that you did not understand what I am trying to say in this matter and you add and talk about the transfer of knowledge and other (relatively) unimportant things.
Therefore, your feeling that I am ignoring the main point of your questions stems from the fact that you did not understand that my answer is that your questions ignore the main point of reality.
I also want to remind you that this is the site of science and therefore there is no chance that you will find the necessary improvement in the education system here. We are all interested in such an improvement and as I work here I also work in other places for this purpose.
It seems you want to save me effort, but your responses only add to the effort - both in the legitimacy they give to the cruel and in the fact that I even have to answer you.
By the way - if you are worried about the academic boycotts - it is advisable that you first understand that they stem from the same mindset from which the legitimacy you give to Islam derives.
Your predictions regarding him are completely different from the plans of the Muslims - if these are the plans of Iran, which for some reason you seem to welcome its nuclearization and ignore the fact that this nuclearization could lead to your death, and if it is your claim that Islam is progressing (it is indeed progressing, but not in its content but in the realization of its plans to conquer the world. See for example here:
http://middlebeast.blogspot.com/2008/04/roubaix-first-occupied-french-city.html )
All the things you said in favor of Islam - beyond the fact that they are not justified - are indeed an encouragement of tolerance towards those who act madly. Therefore your claim that I argued that you encourage such tolerance is nonsense in disguise is nonsense in disguise.
Your ignoring the threat of Islam is the same as your ignoring the plans of all the religious factions in the country to turn the country into a halachic state.
The people we are dealing with in the comments here demonstrate to you the mindset that will characterize all the victims of the education system if it falls into their hands (and their occupation is creeping - but progressing - see the Nahari Law entry and the "secular ultra-Orthodox" education network).
to my father,
I am the anonymous person you were referring to (my technical error).
You claim that the problem is that the deniers of evolution have too much power and are using it to hinder the progress of Israel, which was once a scientific powerhouse.
I am not entering into an argument here about who is bigger and who has more power.
I also do not know a factor that knowingly hinders technological progress, and I would not give religious factors the credit for the failure of the education system and the devaluation of our scientific status. The education system, the governments of Israel, and we the citizens are guilty of neglect, we need to take responsibility, and we need to make amends.
Blaming factors like the "religious" will distance us from solving the problem.
To paraphrase this, your tactic for capturing the target is to wage a war of attrition against nests of resistance,
In my opinion, the tactic should be to bypass the resistance nests and capture the target.
Simply, ignore the hindering factors, and strive to achieve the goal - imparting scientific knowledge to the youth!
When the goal is reached and the youth in Israel know what evolution is, I will take the time to scan backwards and explain what is not scientific (trust me it will be unnecessary, because the youth will already know for themselves what is a scientific theory and what is not)
Meanwhile, anyone who is dragged into theological debates is dragged into the trash heaped by the creationists who want to make a spin and divert the attention of the readers from knowledge, and worse - to drag the seekers of knowledge into a war of attrition in which there are no winners.
And check my words - a response to evolution's fallacies is a must, but an argument is unnecessary and harmful.
As for the academic boycott,
Yes, the statements bother me
And I have no idea what to do about it.
If you have a good idea, please let me know.
And as for the guilt that supposedly I encourage tolerance towards those who act madly.
Scrabble dressed.
This claim is unfounded and unfair (since you don't know me).
Michael,
You are probably confused and big...
I'm not one to argue with them. And your entire response was a double miss.
First, she did not address the main point of my criticism: the ineffective message!
Second, it is not relevant to me. I don't care about Eli Yishai and his opinions, I care about the son of Bozaglo from Sderot who between ICQ and Email surfs and also reaches this site. And he does not know what creationism is nor what evolution is and the way the message is conveyed here does not contribute to his understanding of the matter.
Everything - what is the argument about?
If the problem is a lack of knowledge, then the form of knowledge transfer is flawed.
If the problem is a reluctance to recognize the correctness of the knowledge (in the sense of "knows his world and intends to rebel against it") then this is an ineffective and unnecessary waste of energy
to anonymous
The fact that the theory is proven, but there are opponents with power, money and power who prevent the younger generation from becoming familiar with it, is a danger because the theory of evolution is not just a theory, it is the basis of all natural sciences, and it also has parallels in the universe - for example, the evolution of stars and galaxies, and in general, as No one hides from their children the existence of gravity, no need to hide the existence of evolution. My problem is not that there are deniers, but that these deniers have too much power and are using it to hinder the progress of Israel, which was once a scientific powerhouse.
And whoever wants to is welcome to correct the cruel to the cruel and merciful to the weak
By the way - Google:
Do these statements by academics bother you?
So what do you do about it?
Because I am also active in this issue.
The roots of this issue, by the way, lie in the same tolerance that you encourage towards anyone who acts madly, a tolerance that is why they invented the saying "He who shows mercy to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful"
Google:
Come on!
Did Eli Yishai have a lack of information when he declared that earthquakes are caused by Meshak Zakor?
And how does the information age affect all those we are arguing with you here?
Your statistics about Islamic countries - even where they are correct - are not a result of Islam and indeed - are a result of the advancement of technology available from outside sources and - yes - the information age. This is the problem with this era - it allows Iran to build an atomic bomb!
Isn't it the fact that all Islamic countries are backward and poor despite the enormous wealth of natural resources at their disposal (wealth that someone in Saudi Arabia finally came up with the revolutionary idea - it is not yet known if it will succeed - of establishing a university with its help. By the way - the initiators of the university decided in advance to free Bayah from religious coercion and this One of the reasons why the whole project may fail - there is too much opposition to this decision) speaks for itself?
Many of the leaders of the religious right declare day and night that for them the state law is not valid and only the Torah law is valid.
By virtue of this law they encourage refusal of orders in the army. Their anthem is "advise and sew" but you suggest we sleep in peace.
You seem to be confused.
And regarding the Sanhedrin... it's a shame that people spend their time reading the statements of this sleepy body that even its members don't take seriously.
If anything - the statements of academics from Israel and dance calling for the boycott of Israel worry me more and they represent a more tangible danger to me.
Michael,
By mistake my response appeared under the name anonymous...
I do not think that in the information age there is a tangible danger of regression to the period of the "Dark Ages" - this is an extreme and unlikely scenario.
It is interesting that you chose the Muslim countries as a touchstone.
So let's examine the situation in the Islamic countries since the "darkness of the Middle Ages" which was dark for Europe but not for the Islamic countries (but that's another topic).
Burns are constantly decreasing in all Islamic countries, life expectancy is increasing, and the general standard of living has improved compared to the situation a century ago.
Here on the Hidaan site I learned that in Saudi Arabia they are establishing one of the largest universities in the world.
A Muslim country (Pakistan) already controls the atomic faucets and another Muslim country (Iran) is on its way there and has even launched a satellite into space.
[Framed article: The technological progress achieved by these countries is blessed, the patron of these technologies today is cursed. But in the long term view the regimes will fall and the technology will remain, a fact: the Nazis are gone and the missile and fuel injection technology is still here]
I am not claiming that the Islamic countries should be included in the OECD tomorrow, but the direction in the historical period of the last hundred years is positive and not negative.
If you have significant pessimistic data - share it with me.
And as for Israel, we are a small screw, or a small thorn, depending on who you ask.
Our children do not know what was created on the third day and what was created on the fourth day and they think that evolution amounts to the descent of man from the ape.
Therefore the battle is about passing on knowledge about evolution as a promotion message and not as a battle against creationism which is characterized by prevention messages and only causes the younger generation to get lost and not understand what is wanted from them.
And here is my main criticism.
A lot of energy is spent in the wrong place and in the wrong way.
It is possible to convey the truth of evolution without "wasting" energy on the creationist tattoo.
And even if you are already investing energy in religious wars, then do it wisely.
The war (I don't like this word in the context of opinion) will be decided among the younger generation, and the messages that go out are not effective in this context.
I have no objections to the content of your words, I have objections to the tactics and style.
You can despise and hate Zamir Cohen's demagoguery, you can appreciate and learn from his charisma, tactics and style.
so, to sum up:
It is not clear to me why precisely here in Israel, in Hebrew, creationism should be fought.
It is not clear to me why the path to establishing evolution goes through attacking creationism when the Israelis do not know what creationism is.
And it is not clear to me why at all to fight religion in a shlomial and unsophisticated way (if you want I can give examples).
anonymous:
Just as Israel is the main arena of the Islamic war in the rest of the world, so too is evolution the main arena of the religious war in the Enlightenment.
What is at stake is not "another scientific theory" but the question of whether the darkness of the Middle Ages of religion will return and surround us (in Israel and perhaps in the world as well).
These are people who think that God has revealed to them the whole truth about reality and also all the laws by which we must act.
In the Muslim countries it is easy to see the results of the success of the religious in this kind of struggle, but we are not far from it in Israel either.
See for example here:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3670385,00.html
Avi Blizovsky,
If the theory of evolution is scientifically proven,
Why should she be protected?
Because in the US not enough people accept it?
Because of the Panzerites here in Israel?
I just don't see symmetry between the effort invested and the hoped for result (if a hoped for result has been defined).
to Ilan
As someone who must have studied some course in physics and, I guess, also a bit of quantum theory, you must know that Einstein was wrong. God plays dice and how (of course "God plays" is just a parable).
to Ilan
As someone who must have studied some course in physics and, I guess, also a bit of quantum theory, you must know that Einstein was wrong. God plays dice and how (of course "God plays" is just a parable).
Ilan Pepini:
You didn't ask any question, so I didn't answer your questions and I also had no possibility to avoid a question that wasn't asked.
So let me now ask a question: why are you lying?
(Do you see? There is a mark at the end called a question mark).
All I did was point out the logical fallacies in your words and you didn't even deal with one of them.
As any reasonable person knows - there are no proofs in science.
You cannot prove that I did not create you and all your acquaintances and surroundings a second ago while I plant in your minds the memories that deceive you into thinking that you have been alive for many years.
The question is not whether it can be proven but whether it is probable.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm just trying to show everyone who relates your words (which of course includes you) how ridiculous they are.
Michael:
With all due respect, you again avoid answering the questions I pose, there is no reason for the fish's jaw bones to change and nothing to do with the design of the middle ear mechanism, it is nice that there is a completely accidental connection between the jaw bones of the primitive fish and between the bones of the face and the ear
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Homology.shtml#earossicles
But once again the use here is the words "evolved to" and no one including you Michael can explain how and where all the non-functional forms are on the way.
So let's go one mental step further, and suppose that God created the DNA mechanism and that he also put a plan in place to create those mechanisms in their complete form, how will you, dear Michael, prove that it was not so, there are actually no stages in development to rule out the process of a planner, just as if you watched in the evolution of cars or airplanes and you tried to say it was a random process,
So spare me your attempt to impress with facts and try for a moment to be humble and admit what you and I do not know.
tree:
You are making a gross mistake that is really hard to believe is not intentional.
Why do you call degeneration and in general I'm interested if you've ever put an ostrich in a wind tunnel and tested its aerodynamic properties or you're just shooting in all directions.
The Ostrich is not aerodynamically well designed for the simple reason that it is not designed at all.
The logic you're trying to use doesn't work because you won't look at it.
Even if the ostrich was aerodynamically well designed, the question would be asked, "For what?" - Why make an effort to maintain an aerodynamic structure (which is suitable for flying - I assume that the aerodynamic structure of the ostrich is actually suitable for walking) when you are not flying.
No matter how you look at it - it's not a perfect thing.
Even something that can degenerate is not perfect by its very ability to degenerate.
And I repeat the question: what is degeneration anyway?
Bones that were part of the jaws of fish became part of the audio system in mammals - is this degeneration?
I am sorry to tell you, but the fault you are trying to cast in science is in your approach, and even if you say a thousand times that its motives are not religious or creationist, I will continue to think that these are its motives as long as you do not provide me with another motive for the illogicality of your words.
to my father,
Thanks again for the response, I am not presenting here the theory of intelligent planning or the Book of Genesis, nor am I religious, I did not say that I studied the theory of intelligent planning at the Technion, but I meant that when I was exposed to the principles of planning and the physics behind the mechanisms in nature I understood the complexity of the matter and recognized it myself.
In the last response, you are not referring to my words, but to the words of religious people, apparently, and I have no argument with that, all I am saying is that there is a lack of a "law" of nature or a "force" if you will that explains how all the mechanisms were indeed created, the nutrition certainly repeats that it cannot explain a mechanism designed to work perfectly, for example try to formulate a control law that would explain how the lever in the middle ear got its correct dimensions and you will see that you cannot.
It is not enough to say that in nature all the weak do not survive, as far as I am concerned, if the ear mechanism was not designed correctly, another mechanism could have been created to compensate, but the sonar of the dolphins and the echo of the bats were not created to compensate for non-functioning levers in their ear.
Father, I'm sorry to say this, but today there is the same opacity and opposition to the fact that evolution does not explain the details, as there was opposition to the theory of evolution 200 years ago, and this means that we humans have not actually changed, but have looked for a different kind of god to believe in.
the truth is out there...
The answer to the exact "planning" - again, those who do not live up to the task (e.g. to fly in birds) do not survive and do not pass their traits on to the next generation, or become a flightless bird and then of course, it is clear that all birds that are able to fly meet the criteria that allow them to fly, so their fine tuning can be created in this way.
As for the open system, we do not use even a tiny percentage of the solar energy that reaches us, and still this amount is sufficient for all processes, including the development of plants that enable water purification.
If you take in that mechanisms are built through repeated feedings, therefore they develop quickly and then stop, you will understand that it is not more than the lifetime of the universe to create a single mechanism. And as for the heresy in science, no one can freeze in science, for example try to take a step forward from a bridge 80 meters high, and you will be overwhelmed by gravity, even if you freeze in its existence. It is not clear what you studied at the Technion, but I have not heard that creationism is taught there. It's not that the theory of evolution is weak in explaining the mechanism, it's that this explanation is simply beyond the comprehension of many people who were brought up on the knees of the Book of Genesis, where the plants, for example, were created before the sun. What was their source of energy for photosynthesis during Tuesday?
To my father and Michael, thank you for the response, but I cannot accept these reasons for the following reasons:
1) Birds such as the ostrich and other types that cannot fly are still aerodynamically designed correctly, but they are an example only of a degenerated mechanism and not of a mechanism that is under development, I will give a more detailed example:
Let's say you want to build an airplane, you have building blocks such as wings, tail and body, a given muscle power, a flapping movement with a desired dynamic, etc. Of all the huge variety of winged creatures, you will not find a creature (not degenerate) whose stability is wrong (I say these things as an aeronautical engineer and a pilot).
2) It is true that the earth is an open system, but investing energy is not enough to overcome a decrease in entropy, try heating a glass of cloudy water and you still won't distill it without a distiller, so my argument is that we haven't found the planning mechanism itself.
Thank you for your beautiful response, I remain in my mind.
post Scriptum. The variety of mechanisms in nature is vast and numerous, each of them has no limit to possibilities, it can be easily proven that all the years of the universe will not be enough for one correct design of one animal, and beyond that, the chance that two correctly designed animals will meet and reproduce makes the chances even more zero, since multiplying this probability on her own.
There is no heresy in science in these words, on the contrary, it was only during my studies at the Technion and after that that it became clear to me how weak the theory of evolution is in explaining the mechanism, even though it describes the process well.
By the way, Ilan Panini:
As a complement to my father's correct answer, you should know that many of the animals that live in the always dark places have eyes that do not see.
more than that. Within the group of people with eyes who do not see - many do not see because of various changes in genes.
That is why it happens, for example, that when fish from non-seeing populations are bred, some stingrays that can see may also be obtained.
I suggest you also think about the wings of the ostrich and other birds that are unable to fly.
There are many more examples, but the ones we have given priority because they were actually familiar to you and you simply chose to ignore them.
To Ilan Panini. The second law of thermodynamics is indeed the strongest claim of the rabbis, but it is relevant to closed systems. To remind you, the earth receives sunlight all the time, which in turn drives photosynthesis in plants and provides sustenance for the entire food chain, so even the entire earth is not a closed system, certainly not The living creatures. Indeed, to overcome entropy locally, you have to invest a lot of energy, and indeed I pointed out to you an inexhaustible source of energy.
As for examples of poor design - there are plenty in the human body and other animals - even Darwin agreed that the rat's weak eye was not needed but why is it there? Because the rat's ancestors had eyes and he inherited them even if natural selection did not have to preserve only those whose eyes functioned and thus there was no deficiency in their blindness, and they did not become extinct. Regarding the ear, I am not familiar with the subject, but natural selection is indeed diverse and does not care that there is usually only one type left, unless any change causes damage, in which case the subject will not be passed on.
The same goes for the birds.
I suspect that the devil is not in the small details, but God, because the mahbatim have a tendency to look for gaps (real or as we saw in the first section simulated) in order to bring God into them.
We were indeed able to see everything, including the trial and error process (not a mistake).
No one said that genes are unnecessary in general, but that in man they have no role, and they may have had a role in his ancestors. Such genes can survive if they are neutral i.e. do not interfere with the bearer of them.
There is no doubt that the theory of evolution is scientifically based, and that it has a huge variety of evidence from the field, but (and this is a big but):
1) How does it align with the second law of thermodynamics and with the flow of processes in the direction of increasing entropy.
2) Where are all the examples in which the planning was flawed - for example, let's say that the planning of the middle ear was a random process, where are those examples where the ratio of the lever hitting the eardrum is not the same as the ratio of the speed of sound in water and the speed of sound in air.
Where are the birds because their aerodynamic center is in front of the center of gravity, etc...
I could go on listing such examples forever, but the conclusion is clear:
the devil is in the details:
It is not enough to provide evidence that a process occurs, the problem is the way it occurs, have we been able to prove that new mechanisms do appear out of nowhere?
Were we able to see how the trial and error process is carried out in nature, or just survival of the fittest?
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the playing stones of "God" are the genes, and it is very possible that those "redundant" genes are the key, but as Einstein said (in his opposition to the quantum theory) God does not play with dice.
I'm glad that my comic rant amused you
And now on a slightly more serious note:
Nikola Tesla
Nina Kolagina
Good night
Hugin:
Since you complained that I did not respond to your "questions" and "references" then here it is:
Your question/reference: "Michael:"
My response: Hugin
Your question/reference: "I will not enter into an idle conversation with you in the field."
My response: a very happy promise that is a shame it was not fulfilled
Your question/comment: "There is no innovation and heartwarming vision in the content you brought, not even a glimmer of optimism."
My response: The content is a description of a situation. It is not a matter of optimism or pessimism. There is also nothing good or bad about optimism or pessimism so it is not clear to me what this accusation is. In any case - the fact that I am trying to act to change the future you are planning for us, even though I know there are many like you, actually indicates optimism.
Your question/reference: "Furthermore, it is evident in your attitude that you show a complete lack of trust in the necessary processes of life."
My response: Since when should one acquire trust or lack of trust in necessary processes? It's like accusing you of not trusting the kettle. In any case - what you see as a necessary process is not really necessary. If there are enough smart people it will be possible to change the processes even if they currently seem to lead to a necessary evil.
Your question/reference: "Your non-ideological belief,, what is the light in it?"
My response: you're a jerk.
Your question/reference: "But again, I will refer to the last sentence you wrote, and ask that you clarify what you mean?
"When I say something there is real content behind it and don't throw yourself at me."
My response: very simple. My intention is that when I say something there is real content behind it and don't throw yourself at me
Hugin:
People like you are exactly what is needed to perpetuate evil.
All they do is decide that evil is good and they come with claims to those who distinguish between good and evil.
So continue to bless everything - good or bad - and you are guaranteed that in the end you will only bless the bad.
Hugin, that's not slander. Some of the parties in the next coalition will cause us to reach years of darkness.
Hugin:
You say you won't enter into an idle conversation with me, but that's the only kind of conversation you've been demonstrating here since day one, and your response is no exception.
Apart from baseless grades there is nothing in it.
What to do? I cannot provide you with the predictions you want to receive because I look reality in the eyes.
Therefore, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to release from me a statement about the rest of the soul, and no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to get me to say that the earth's anxiety is beneficial.
It's hard for me to tell if you got it or not.
In a normal person, I would have noticed the moment he switched from arguments to insults, and that would have signaled to me that he understood that he would not be able to come up with convincing arguments, but with you, the insults came right from the beginning and nothing was ever brought up, so it's hard to tell.
Michael:
Check your jar: You didn't respond to a single word of my questions and comments.
Unlike you, I don't deal with what I think. Rather, here and now and say thank you for everything there is.
Even on you (the virtual one, the garlic eater;), despite all your slanderous slanders about the population of your countrymen without the truth of 'Or'.
Do you sometimes really listen to the things coming out of you??
Michael:
I will not enter into an idle conversation with you in the field.
There is no innovation and heartwarming vision in the content, not even a trace of optimism. Moreover, it is evident in the attitude that you show a complete lack of trust in the necessary processes in life.
Your non-ideological belief,, what is the light in it?
But again, I will refer to the last sentence you wrote, and ask that you clarify what you mean?
"When I say something there is real content behind it and don't throw yourself at me."
Hugin:
The explanation is simple and I thought it would not be necessary for those who read what we deal with in "Or".
The country will be destroyed because of the sectarianism imposed on it by the ultra-Orthodox (by dodging the burden of security and the economy and the Arabs giving their children a Palestinian identity instead of an Israeli one).
It's not a fault.
It's a fact.
The natural proliferation of these two sectors means that the basis on which the country stands is getting narrower while the unproductive sectors are getting bigger.
Beyond the natural increase, the problem is intensified by the independent education systems of the ultra-Orthodox who only teach their students about a bull hitting a cow and do not allow them to become productive citizens.
Another thing that obviously contributes to the problem is the discrimination against Israel's Arabs - a discrimination that is largely the reason for their tendency to identify themselves as Palestinians.
All these things - which are trends that no party has ever bothered to stop - will lead to the fact that the security and economic agenda of the country's leaders will not change, because in the absence of a stable economy and an army that can be trusted, the ones who will decide what will happen here are our nice neighbors.
You know? Hugin? When I say something there is real content behind it and don't throw yourself at me.
Michael:
In your last response you wrote a sentence that requires an explanation:
"I just wanted to feel that when they destroy the country, they won't be able to blame me."
From this should we (guests: inn/pub/site of science) conclude that your special 'light' predicts some kind of blackness and siege?
And a question that may be related to 'Darwin's defense':
Is it in the absolute recognition of Darwin's 'evolution' theory that today happened to be his birthday, only 200 light years old - the world/everything is pending!!?
Because if so, aren't you actually associated with the New Age yourself? 🙂
As for the 'others', who walk with great respect on thick, ancient volumes, full of wisdom accumulated over thousands of years, archaic in comparison to 200 years of a 'young' world, where would you classify them in the scale of the catalogs you dig?
I tell you, Michael, I'm short of understanding you. (Not to mention that I almost lost my 'identity' in your shadow - which illuminates my virtual / hallucinatory face).
Isaiah:
For some reason I forgot to mention you.
Shahar and you - on the whole - on the same side of the same coin.
The whole difference between you is in the choice of superstitions and superstitions.
It is surprising that you are not even gifted with the ability to cooperate in situations where you have the same opinions and interests.
Dawn:
You're still evasive.
What is? Don't you want to make a million dollars?
Are you more comfortable being called a liar and delusional?
Tell me if you see halos of people and objects even in the dark. What is so difficult to answer such a simple question?
Hugin:
It's OK.
The people of darkness will never see the light.
I just wanted to feel that when they destroy the country, they won't be able to blame me.
Google:
I do not do anything unpleasant to those who are not imposters or liars.
I know that there are people who think that reacting to the crimes of others is worse than committing the crimes - Israel experiences this all the time in its relations with the Palestinians and with Europe, so peace be upon you, Europe.
OK
It's been a long time since I've rubbed my hands together with pleasure like I did after Shahar's feast with Michael's meat meal.
I would send it to a "moment of pleasure" with Guy Zohar so that all the people of Israel can enjoy.
It's amazing how 45% of the comments so far are not at all about the article but about the spin created by Shahar.
Not bad. The one who ate the spin is Michael (who earned a new nickname "fascist") and a servant of God that I couldn't figure out if he was a troll or really religious.
Clarification for Michael:
In my opinion you are not a fascist, in the worst case you just create an unpleasant atmosphere for some people.
Now be troublesome and prove it with the unkind response you write
Q, did I tell you that you're okay? lol (:
It is surprising that you did not refer to the written fact about Michael at all. R: He is a New Vegetarian. :) A staunch lover of garlic-onions,,:) He was recently seen unsuccessfully trying to get on the path of 'light';) But the last elections did not illuminate Face to his elitist group. ;)
It's not bad Michael, I hope we remain friends with the knowledgeable limited liability.
Shahar - interesting interesting. Be healthy boy, be healthy. I leave you to Michael R. After he finishes the training, the stew and the thoughts about you. have fun The more I think about it, the more you seem to me like two sides of the same coin, or rather, like writing reflected in a mirror. May you have nothing but good. And love each other, or at least be tolerant.
Morality in my opinion justifies harmful actions by defining values.
A person who harms the environment, the soil of the country, in the name of a higher value placed by some framework, for example, a person who builds a rehabilitation center for anxiety victims at the expense of the complete destruction of nature and the animals in that area can be moral but not ethical in my opinion.
Ethics, in my opinion, is the absolute equality between all human beings, to live free lives.
A country that conquers and invades the territory of a people in the name of their moral values is unethical.
The absolute equality comes from the deep understanding that we are united, and to say we for me means every living being down to the level of bacteria.
Shahar - God forbid, God forbid, I did not find any harm or evil in your words. On the contrary. But something like you describe is not right for a person to bear alone. Any person, even the strongest, can kneel under such a burden. Take care, man. Get advice from a professional.
As for ethics - I have always perceived ethics as an organizational, group thing. What existence does one man's ethics have? What ethics do you believe in?
Michael, let time take its course.
Are you confused about what to eat after training?
Did I appear in your thoughts?
Isaiah Do you find things morally offensive?
By the way, I don't believe in morality but in ethics.
There is a great distance between consciously fooling yourself, out of a certain consideration of yours and out of a repressed knowledge of what the real reality is, and perceiving reality in a distorted way in the original, without being able to perceive it in another way. This distance is the same as the distance between philosophy and madness.
It is certainly possible, in a conscious act of absolute freedom, to declare, I decide that everything that other people call "black" is for me, "white as snow". But - this can only be done from a place where you are aware that your "white as snow" is seen as black by most other people. If you are unable to see their "black" at all, you most likely have some sort of brain chemical imbalance. Maybe some lithium?
OK, briefing. But you should get counseling. You know, "with great power comes great responsibility" (forgive me for quoting from comic books. Sometimes there are some good truths there) and you may need a spiritual guide to advise you so that your use of the powers you experience is moral and does not harm you or others, God forbid. You probably have a family doctor in your health fund, maybe tell him a little about your powers?
Dawn:
I haven't gone to practice yet.
Your next piece of nonsense came while I still had time to see so I replied.
I'll leave in a moment and leave you time to answer what was asked instead of offering me diet suggestions based on wrong assumptions (like I already came back from training and ate meat).
I definitely need to take care.
to advise.
to guide.
Shahar - Do you sometimes have thoughts about taking care of towers, or weapons? Do you sometimes feel that you are being chased or followed or eavesdropped on? These are huge warning signs, dear fellow.
Michael, you shouldn't have eaten the meat after the workout.
A legume meal was even more beneficial and nutritious.
Dawn:
Stop dodging!
Do you see halos of people or objects in the dark?
Shahar, a nice guy. Without a hint of condescension, but from a place of deep concern, if you believe what you wrote above, I think you could benefit greatly from spiritual counseling. Maybe you want a phone of a good, enlightened and advanced rabbi who can talk to you about the things you are experiencing and refer you to the appropriate authorities? You need to take care of yourself, dear and fast.
I'm willing to try! I have not yet had the chance to plan an experiment that would prove this, nor did I feel that I needed to...maybe the day has come to promote it....
As for the total darkness... I don't know such a concept... in any light condition, even with my eyes closed, I see the grid. It can be described as millions of tiny vibrating particles that are everywhere.
Try doing an experiment like this: make your own eyes and press lightly on the centers of the eyes with the knuckles of the guide fingers. Wait a little while and swim into the so-called darkness. After a while you should start to see some movement, sometimes like a chessboard stretching in different directions.
This experiment does not prove anything (perhaps even weakens my claims) but it helps those who want to start watching GRID as well.
For anyone following this Kishkushiade at dawn:
I'm going to the gym now, so - if he answers - I'll continue to introduce him only after I get back from there (probably in the evening).
Dawn:
You do try to avoid an experiment but you failed.
You can put several people you know in another room and have the experimenter determine independently of you which of them will call and when.
We'll see you guess it in advance.
Regarding seeing the auras in the dark - I didn't understand. Do you see the auras of people and objects even in complete darkness?
The amount of visible "glow" depends on the "energetics" (for lack of a better word) in the air. Even in a dark room.
For example, in a room where music is playing, the particles will glow more and sometimes additional shapes will appear moving in squares of about 4-5 cm.
Spirals can open in front of the third eye - the pineal gland.
Conversations and (random) meetings with people from several countries in the world led me to understand that what I have seen for years is not unique and happens in other nations. I recently checked in energy healing books and found (to my surprise?) that everything I dealt with and conclusions I drew alone and in secret, had actually been researched by others in the past.
Regarding the experiment - I know that my mind also works as a transmitter, but as of today, the direction is not in favor of a distinct scientific experiment. This means that I can't decide who the person is to call me and make them do it, but in many cases I will get "knowledge" in advance.
Isaiah:
I'm amazed that you haven't noticed yet that Hagin is one of the most distinct New Ageists walking around here and feels (like Shahar) that they have hidden qualities that lift them up from the crowd.
Dawn:
You are still hallucinating or lying but let's ignore the auras and concentrate on the phones.
It can be tested practically and if you succeed in this you will receive a million dollars from James Randi.
I pointed you to the link to the challenge website.
Please let us know the results of the experiment by referring us to Randy's publication to say that finally - after more than forty years - someone has succeeded in meeting the challenge.
Until then - allow me to categorize you as yet another charlatan.
I will add another question - hoping that it will not be used as an excuse for you to avoid what I said before.
What can be done with the aura you see? How do you know you don't just have a problem with your eyes? Do you see her even in complete darkness?
What my eyes see is not a hallucination.
For over 10 years I have been aware of this and aware of its applications.
I'm not lying, but I haven't yet developed a method to photograph what I see for you.
People close to me react with the same bewilderment, but I am convinced that the initial level of the aura is semi-physical, so more people can expect it if they train their minds to do so.
It's a long process of "rewiring" (at least for me) and I'm still learning (autodidactically) how to master the techniques. As of today, messages are delivered to me subconsciously, usually a few seconds before they happen. This is expressed in the fact that during a conversation I know what I am going to be asked before the person in front of me has finished the sentence, sometimes even before he has started speaking.
At a critical point in my life, I underwent additional programming that loosened the connection between my mind and my subconscious.
It opened me to a lot of knowledge about the universe within a period of a few weeks and also opened up old memories and a sequence of many insights.
Our eyes are a much more sophisticated tool than is commonly thought (or known to the general public)
Dawn:
You are delusional or lying.
If not - you are welcome to prove your claim and win a million dollars at James Randi's.
Believe it or not:
I have never consumed any chemical.
I never wanted to.
regardless (maybe with a little)
I have fans all over the world.
If so, are you invited in your free time to the global-megalomaniac? Or the humanistic 'Science and Nature' blog of our informant: 'Yehuda Sabdermis':
This week on the agenda: ideas and ideals in the proverbs section,,and the place desperately needs a philosophical hand and maybe even a fresh head to lift the morale,,the intellectual,,,:)
Michael R. – Nice bite, I admit.
Q (Is the former "Hoggin", the former "Hoggin and Monin of Odin"?) You are the most interesting person who writes here and arouses enormous curiosity in me (intellectual only, of course). Can I read a few words that will expand on your background?
Isaiah:
I don't think anyone would suggest spiking Shahar with chemicals.
As he speaks the truth will more than reward him.
Say Shahar, is there a book from the "new era" that you haven't cited yet?
Maybe you will try to witness real science as well and not all kinds of delusional ideas?
And I would love to receive a photo of the "website" network - CRYSTAL GRID
Or if you write with the help of telepathy which number I was thinking of when I wrote this comment.
To a certain extent, you can consider and perhaps blame the entire consciousness of the world wide web as evoking a tendency to behave on the foundations of the theory of solipsism, since everyone on the network exists as virtual consciousnesses/and as private 'selves' they are loyal: to messing with their perception
and in themselves; in their thoughts; in their desires; and in the facts of their reality, as the only thing that exists and is real.
I think Shahar is a kind of solipsist. He realizes his personal freedom to perceive reality in his own way. I suppose that an extreme rationalist response on the part of some people who have a monopoly on reality, would be to catch him, involuntarily hospitalize him, spray him with chemicals and maybe also honor him with some kind of electric shock in the head from time to time.
It reminds me of a conversation between a one-dimensional creature and a three-dimensional creature,,:) Who is right between the two of them in their situation X?
In my reality - auras of humans and plants can be observed regularly.
It appears as a thin, transparent layer about 1.5 -2 cm thick around the body.
The "website" network - CRYSTAL GRID can also be viewed.
It manifests itself in small glowing and vibrating particles of light.
Telepathy is part of the routine, certain ideas that arise in one's mind - will also be accepted by me.
When I think of a random person - usually he will call me. (Or vice versa...when I call a person he will tell me that he thought of me at that moment.)
Messages from higher parts of consciousness (subconscious, etc.) are received on a daily basis.
Dawn:
Come and show me what is different about your reality from mine.
Is there a physical experiment that would give a different result?
Is there a mathematical calculation that works for me and won't work for you?
A point is correct - you are just talking nonsense and this nonsense will not turn into the truth of a point at any stage - unless he takes a hallucinogenic drug.
look dawn,
You refer to the realities of thought.=idealism (future?).
And as long as things have not yet been realized they are called in the plane of reality 'hallucination'.
Michael refers to an actual reality in an existing time period. = materialism. (here and now).
And there are those who are haunted by the past; such as the Jewish people, the spirit of Darwin, = Archaeologists and archaeologists. :)
incidentally,
You are right Michael! You exist in one and only reality.
I, on the other hand, live in a different reality.
Can anyone prove otherwise?
from experience…
My nonsense is your future truth
Let's talk in a few years.
Shahar, you should start studying and finish reading postmodernist nonsense.
"The world contains as many realities as there are people" and yet everyone is afraid to jump from a high mountain, a strange coincidence?
Everyone eats, drinks, sleeps, dreams and defecates. Coincidence.
You get up in the morning and look in the mirror and it's always you, another coincidence.
start thinking..
The problem is with those fools who invent their own hallucinations and call it reality. The delusional ones indeed make up most of the world, and set the high tone. Although everyone agrees that their realities have never contributed anything to humanity. And besides, none of them will jump off the roof, for some reason.
Dawn:
I don't have time right now to address all of your words, but since there is one concise thing you said that represents everyone in my opinion, I will only address it.
You said: "The world contains as many realities as the number of people living on it and there is no absolute truth but a popular opinion."
In my opinion, this is a dress code. There is only one reality and there is only one truth.
If you disbelieve in this - let me just ask you" Is the sentence I quoted from your words an absolute truth?
The world contains as many realities as the number of people living on it and there is no absolute truth but a popular opinion. "Evidence" exists on both sides, and most of the time, each side will claim that the same evidence actually strengthens its claim. .
The idea of evolution as it is understood by simple people and points is incomplete and must be expanded towards the concept that every particle also serves as a part of a higher order than that which does not necessarily serve its personal survival interest.
The "group" is actually an organization of people for a common goal, such as a knowledge site for example, a hi-tech company or yeshiva members.
Look at the people and you will see some of them dealing with art, another part in economics, communication, science, education and other fields.
Each field is necessary for the growth of all humanity and thus each person actually "serves" a function higher than himself.
Everyone's personal "choices" guide him towards a suitable occupation and his beliefs are shaped accordingly.
We can be compared to particles that developed from the same cell but each received a different function, just as red blood cells differ in their function from white ones, etc...
There is a situation where everyone is wrong and everyone is right... everyone is "right" (inside his head)
So that he can continue to serve the higher purpose of which he is a part, often even without being aware of it.
Dawn, I didn't understand what you want. Invent a new theory of the origin of species? fix the current one? replace her..
Explain it in the opening.
Regarding the team, it is not clear, do you mean Beitar Jerusalem or Hapoel Tel Aviv, or are you talking about a general and higher team at the level of national teams in the World Cup? Or I did not understand you at all and you mean the fans of the teams and not the teams themselves.
Hate will not bring progress.
It exists on both sides and is exactly what each hates in the other.
I do not deny evolution, nor do I see it as an example of a contradiction to an intelligent higher design.
In the case of autophagy, for example, a single, damaged cell is designed to destroy itself in order to maintain the vitality of the whole body.
It is necessary to recognize that you are part of a group in order to function in this way, and high supervision is required for this to happen. In this case - the brain.
Some people also sacrifice themselves for the sake of the group, whether it is a scientist sent into space on a dangerous mission or a suicide bomber who is absolute in his views about the "truth" of reality.
Bees, fish, birds, etc., move in group formations and even for this a higher type of intelligence is needed, in this case - the collective consciousness of the group of birds
To the same extent, all human beings share a collective consciousness, a sort of complete repository of accumulated general knowledge and it symbolizes the spirit of the times.
Although these facts contradict the theory in which the strong survives, they do not mean that there is no evolution (development).
Natural selection collapses against individual individuals who sacrifice themselves for a noble cause.
The collective development depends on the distribution of information among the people as well as the distribution of means.
As time goes on, this development accelerates along with the development of technology, communication and the ethics involved.
"Evolution" - a planned system in which people are divided into groups and sacrifice their lives for a noble goal which is their personal fulfillment and also to be part of a higher goal, a group.
Each group "takes care" that another part of the human set will develop another trait that will accelerate development. Science, culture, communication, etc
All the fields together contain the general collective consciousness that dictates the habits of life, consumption, etc.
hook
point:
There is a figure you did not consider.
You "hear" their wails.
What animal did you say? Not a monkey but a jackal.
And it was clear beforehand that jackals evolved from the creation of jackals.
Sometimes thoughts start to occur to me that after all there was no evolution as the scientists claim, and that man actually did not evolve from the ape... and even here and there there are comments that make me believe that the apes evolved from creationists.
Hugin:
I too am sorry for the fascism demonstrated here, but I am not with Shahar in his sorrow, because fascism is the ultra-Orthodox fascism that tries from time to time - through him and through others - to browse this site.
Dawn:
You're rambling, but I'm certainly not giving you credit for saying that.
There is no information in your response. Only "moral" preaching and slander.
:) With you in your sadness about the 'fascism' sometimes expressed in these discussions.
:) With you in your hope perhaps to find the 'disappearing' and special section in Darwin's theory which shows that in one of the sections of the 'evolutionary tree of life' certain catalysts (internal or external/like, a 'certain' intervention) came out or also came out, which perhaps created a kind of 'revolution' - and we will not ignore the possibilities of revolutionary mutations - in some of the varieties and perhaps also a type of 'creativity' similar to the 'miracle' of 'machines' - robotics established today precisely by the people of science itself who, some of them - completely disbelieve in the creationist approach and ironically this activity Remarkably similar' to the act of subconscious imitation known in hypnotized people :) and in intelligent beings who repeat the same action from which they drew, oo-o-coorzo. There is no shortage of proofs/researches/discoveries and writings that are revealed about. The many documents for this were conveyed/told by different means that were customary at the time, to different versions according to the levels of understanding that were common/or once operated (and in different time frames) and perhaps also in a 'picturesque-parable' way as is customary Always at oral levels, poetry/fiction or world philosophies and as documented in the libraries of the various peoples of the world.,,
There are many more questions than unequivocal and closed answers, everything is open.
By the way, the word 'new era' has a lot of illusion, in my opinion.
Shahar, I couldn't understand your response, do you mean that there is no absolute truth and that everyone will choose a side? And what about the facts that unequivocally support evolution?
Dear people
You are all right and wrong at the same time.
The damage and benefit increase every year uniformly (almost)
Whether this is harm or benefit depends on who you ask.
Absolutism is refuted on both sides...a "scientist" like Michael whose discussion tactics border on fascism gives a bad name to every person of education and knowledge.
Religious fanaticism gives a bad name to any spiritual person who is looking for meaning in his life.
There is no contradiction between the 2 Torahs (even though one of them is not a Torah but a theory..)
The only mistake is thinking that if you believe in one then it must be in a way that absolutely does not allow the existence of the other theory.
Teachings that inhibit growth are invalid in my view, technology will bring growth to humans, redeem us and bring us to the "new age" that the spiritual people talk about.
Coexistence and cooperation between intellectuals and scientists will bring about a historical breakthrough.
45 Judah was added
To say that the harms of science overshadow its achievements is a gross mistake.
Science has no gains or losses, the gains and losses belong to humanity in the use of discoveries
the scientific.
Your claim sounds a bit naive coming from a person who lives in Israel and let's not say Haiti and to simplify my words
I will ask you, would you consider the claim of a millionaire who claims that money is harmful?
I don't understand why the same discussion is repeated over and over again. Admitting the existence of evolution means admitting the error of the Torah. The creationists will never accept this and will bring every excuse, distortion and deception in order to prove creation. Think how much time you waste on the same discussion over and over again. There was already the creationist who described in detail the process of evolution in bacteria and then claimed that it cannot be. It is now 22:43 p.m. Despite the time, even though it is dark outside, even though everyone has gone to sleep, I claim that it is now 10 in the morning. Because it is written in the Torah.
to roi-
". First of all, the gene for nylon was not created only by means of plasmids, but it is possible to create enzymes that break down nylon when bacteria are grown without other food sources, and without plasmids containing the gene for nylon." - I heard this claim in one of the articles. However, an examination conducted by 2 Chinese researchers revealed that probably an event Something else happened there. Perhaps an exchange of plasmids but not a frame shift. Even so - it is possible that some amino acids with an acidic charge are what cause the digestion of the nylon. This is not similar to the formation of a new three-dimensional active site.
2″. E. coli bacteria have evolved in vitro and developed the ability to digest citrate. This ability requires two enzymes with a new action: one that allows citrate to enter the cell, and the other that allows the bacterium to digest the citrate regularly." - No. What happened there was a change in the regulation of these enzymes. Although I read Michael Behe's post and he actually claimed that this was evidence For planning because too many mutations are required there at once or something. I think he is wrong because it was really long ago as I imagine before the research itself.
3″. Sphingomonas bacteria have developed a complete metabolic pathway capable of breaking down new man-made pesticides. "-Sounds interesting, I haven't heard about it. But I'm sure one of the following scenarios is possible-
Amino acids have an acidic charge
An operon that was a pseudo gene is back in action
Plasmid exchange
Do you have a link to the original message?
"No, you didn't answer that. You just complicated your allegory even more and made it more delusional." - and I also claimed in advance that it is false and it is also compatible with evolution.
Now what do you make of this?
Let's outline your theories. You conclude that one of the following happened:
1. God created fossils, just because, well - he felt like it. You have a strange god, don't you? Likes to fool the stupid humans, and plant all the evidence of evolution for them so that they will only think that there is evolution. But actually there isn't. God is playing with us. Condeson, really." - Here is something simpler - the Creator left various worlds at different times. What is the problem?
"2. The aliens created fossils. of course. They are terribly bored, so they came here every century, and planted new fossils, or they just brought new animals every century. Because the previous animals don't reproduce, after all. They are not like the animals that have existed in the last ten thousand years, when the aliens suddenly stopped visiting, and the animals began to reproduce and undergo mutations and natural selection on their own." - Maybe the earth is a test tube for genetic engineering?
” Can they predict which fossils are found in which layers of soil? Because evolution can, and succeeds in it again and again." - Yes. The simple cars will be at the bottom and the complex ones at the top.
Can your 'theories' mathematically predict how creatures will adapt to their environment and at what rate? Because evolution can." - Evolution cannot and has even been hidden a number of times such as Kimura's studies that caused the formation of neutralist evolution.
to 'someone from somewhere',
I am very happy that you bring up the topic of new proteins in evolution. Let's talk a little about new proteins, so you can know the full picture:
1. First of all, the gene for nylon is not created only by means of plasmids, but it is possible to create enzymes that break down nylon when bacteria are grown without other food sources, and without plasmids containing the gene for nylon.
2. E. coli bacteria have evolved in vitro and developed the ability to digest citrate. This ability requires two enzymes with a new action: one that allows the citrate to enter the cell, and the other that allows the bacterium to digest the citrate regularly.
3. Sphingomonas bacteria have developed a complete metabolic pathway capable of breaking down new man-made pesticides.
So now that you know some of the new enzymes created in evolution, and you've seen that it can definitely happen, you can continue to the next part.
"Your allegory that fossils are equivalent to cars doesn't really work. Can cars mate with each other? Do the offspring of the cars have different characteristics from father and mother car? This is a fundamentally wrong analogy, which proves nothing. "-I answered that."
No, you didn't answer that. You have only complicated your allegory further and made it more delusional.
Come on, I'll show you some evidence:
There are fossils that testify to the existence of ancient animals.
The fossils develop according to the times expected from them. In more ancient layers of earth we find the ancestors of the horse and the whale. In layers closer to our time we find more modern creatures, and so on, up to present-day creatures.
All these fossils were once alive, because they are the fossilized bones of those creatures.
Those ancient creatures could reproduce.
Now what do you make of this?
Let's outline your theories. You conclude that one of the following happened:
1. God created fossils, just because, well - he felt like it. You have a strange god, don't you? Likes to fool the stupid humans, and plant all the evidence of evolution for them so that they will only think that there is evolution. But actually there isn't. God is playing with us. Condon, really.
2. The aliens created fossils. of course. They are terribly bored, so they came here every century, and planted new fossils, or they just brought new animals every century. Because the previous animals don't reproduce, after all. They are not like the animals that have been around for the past ten thousand years, when the aliens suddenly stopped visiting, and the animals began to multiply and undergo mutations and natural selection on their own.
Come on. Stop hiding behind meaningless sentences, and tell me which of the above theories you choose. And then we'll talk about it: why do animals today undergo mutations and natural selection, and in the past they didn't? Who is this God who created the animals, and continued to produce them every generation anew? Or, alternatively, why did he plant all these fossils in the ground?
And actually, what can we know using your 'theories'? Can they predict what will be the form of the genes that will be discovered in new creatures? Because evolution can, and this is what the science of molecular and comparative biology is based on. Can they predict which fossils are found in which layers of soil? Because evolution can, and succeeds in it again and again. Can your 'theories' mathematically predict how creatures will adapt to their environment and at what rate? Because evolution can.
So come on, 'someone from somewhere'. If you want to be serious, let's talk about your theories and how they explain all the existing facts.
Hugin:
You don't understand what I'm saying but I'm tired
Haha Michael, you made me laugh big :) I, like everyone, am enslaved to life!, but in my own way.
You don't want me to be enslaved, God forbid, to you personally and to your decisive decisions? Right?
Hugin:
You are not enslaved as I am enslaved.
I am enslaved only to reality and this is not a choice but a necessity. You choose for yourself additional mechanisms of enslavement and even if you don't recognize reality you are enslaved to it.
I'm trying, on the one hand, to make sure that you don't drag more people into this delusion, and on the other hand - that neither you nor others impose modes of behavior on humans that only result from your choice of slavery.
You know what Michael? I prefer to adhere to the need for intellectual integrity and survival :), to the 'uncertainty principle', and live in peace with my inner beliefs and maybe even be 'enslaved' in my ways
(as you are enslaved, to yours) in the degree of 'cognitive freedom',, that there are things in life that indeed, we are 'enslaved' to by the necessity of the 'principle that ignites' the inner/individual vitality,, and a person in his faith/according to his intelligence/and reason, will live.
In my opinion, comment 45 is a blatant lie from beginning to end.
Maybe someone will again argue that telling a liar that he is a liar is worse than lying, but that doesn't interest me.
In the description given there is no name for science and not even a hint of truth and the only thing it reveals is that the writer does not bother writing things he does not know or even things he knows are not true.
The apparent contradiction between science (and its particular case today, evolution) and the idea of creation by a superior intelligent essence, should not be taken for granted at all. Although religion is accused of dogmatism, science also shows signs of dogmatism, even though the intellectual tools used by it are supposed to prevent this. Because, on both sides of the barrier, it is human nature and not entities separated from it. Namely, in the way that man, limited in his intellectual and sensory perception, digests the complex reality. The supreme importance of scientific development is that it revealed to the human race the instinct of self-destruction inherent in it, and how much it constitutes a threat to its very existence. All other scientific discoveries are only secondary. The scientific soul-searching, which was never conducted seriously, is becoming the order of the hour, since, today, the damages of science are already overshadowing its achievements. Science, being devoid of values, is doomed by its very nature to develop into a corrupting tool, just as indeed today the technological tools are corrupting the biosphere on which the existence of humanity is founded. Science without values, except for the principles of rational criticism, has become a religious cult, which is dozens of times more dangerous than all religions combined.
Hugin:
I know the joke, but I don't want you to avoid the question about the difference between truth discovered by science and what religion claims without any basis to be true.
Do you think that deciding which of the two truths is correct (when they contradict each other) is simply a matter of decision and choosing the claim of religion instead of the findings of science at all deserves to be called "truly choosing"?
Michael,
I'm sorry that I don't see any interest in a person who brings up rumination,,, but I have a joke for you :)
One rabbit entered a pharmacy and asked in the form of 'Rabbit: Hello, do you have carrot juice?' No, the pharmacist replied, there is a pharmacy here, there are any medicines you want, so he left and came back the next day: Hello, do you have carrot juice? And again The apothecary replied with the same formula,,so on the third day,,on the fourth day the rabbit came back and asked for the same rabbit formula,,ah, the apothecary replied,,the pharmacist's husband and I were convinced that your request was right,,you know (she tells him) vitamin A - pro-vitamin,, So really, we prepared it especially for you, as you requested!! And then,, the rabbit replies to them,, in his rabbit way,, Xsssssss,, isn't that disgusting? :)
Hugin:
Returning to the default example:
Science claims that the rabbit does not ruminate.
Judaism claims that the rabbit raises rumen.
Are both claims equally "true"?
Don't you see that your presentation of the findings of science as equivalent to the nonsense in the mouths of people who formulated a religion thousands of years ago is nothing but a lie?!
Hugin:
But you constantly ignore the fundamental difference between science and religion!
Science does find out the truth and is also built to change its position in relation to any claim considering the data that is discovered in the experiment while the "truth" of the religions is nothing but a lie that someone lied!
Isaiah:
Unfortunately - the overwhelming and influential majority of the religious public does not think like you.
Although I do not think that the Torah represents truth, but if you are interested in work that involves adjusting your interpretation of the Torah so that it fits the truth and you are ready to accept the truth from science, that is your business alone.
I am bothered by those (who are the majority and include the entire religious establishment) who see the Torah (as they understand it) as the correct description of reality. These people also make sure day and night to prevent the students of the sages (what a ridiculous choice of nickname) from any exposure to scientific knowledge.
I am also troubled by the religious coercion that derives from the same approach (if the Torah is subject to interpretations - by what authority does someone impose on another one of the things written in it? It is possible that he does not understand at all what the scriptures imply and therefore the coercion he imposes is not of what God willed but of what is In his disability he interpreted as God's will).
Of course, I am also troubled by the privileges that people who evade the burden of security and the economy claim for themselves, claiming that their teachings are their art - this right that they grant themselves also derives only from their private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Michael:
,,,and I will add thanks to your response,
And what they all have in common: the wonderful and resolute cry>"the truth"!
And as proof of your decisive sentence: 'There is no boss but the truth' = equivalent = 'I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other God before me,,,:)
You are not obligated to be in the evidence, just please, there is no need for you to feel that I threw sand in your eyes (plural) and 'nonsense' and 'lies' for transparency and,, other derogatory words,, are useless.
On a principled level I simply refuse to deny the facts. As soon as there is an apparent contradiction between facts and my belief, it is a sign that my understanding was flawed (and not my belief) and I must activate the appropriate thinking mechanisms to reconcile the contradiction that has arisen. This mechanism will always work and protect my faith from the extinction that some readers here might want.
Michael R. - The "contradiction" is in the eye of the reader, or rather - in his mind. What you call "Holy Scriptures" has many layers. They are written very wisely so that even babies of Beit Raban can find interest in them and also adults, educated and enlightened people can draw inspiration from them. Those who insist on seeing what is said there in a simplistic and one-dimensional way can certainly reach the result of an apparent contradiction. But in this way he misses the great mental pleasure of trying to explain things to himself and settle them. I assume that you believe that there is a "contradiction" between the mechanisms of evolution as accepted today and their understanding and between the description of creation for example? Well - you must assume, in order to reach a contradiction, that the terms used in the story of creation are all completely understandable to you on all their levels, that the terms of time are as we understand them today and only that, and that the words were worded as they were worded for the benefit of your ear, instead of being worded for the ear of Moses.
Hugin:
This is just nonsense!
The revolution created by the discovery of evolution has no boss but the truth.
I have already explained in my previous comments that in this matter the scientist has no choice because he is indeed enslaved to the truth and cannot start lying just because Hugin wants him to do so.
The opposite that Darwin's teachings created through the concept of science is not at all and essentially different from all teachings/that became religions and others, that emerged or evolved and developed from ways of looking/logic/and observations in order to think and wonder about the processes of the creation of the world and its custom.
With one difference: the 'bosses' are different :)
Hugin:
You don't care at all.
The fact that people from religion A fight with people from religion B does not belong to the wars that religions forbid science.
Please - don't try to throw sand in our eyes.
It's simple for me - as always, I also remember fateful / critical events in our and the world's history: deep economic / social crises from which arose or arose those who said: these 'Jews',, swept away many according to a 'sweeping action',,
The calls of slander, from home and abroad, these 'religious' claimants are no different: neither in Israel nor in the world. The same 'lady of excuses and coercion, in the change of clothing', the same 'narrow eyes, the same statements that seek to open the narrow door',, and everything in their name,, and on the other hand there is no different The stream of the 'religious',,,,,
And the world as it usually does. (Except, if everyone looks into the depths of his thoughts and motives honestly, among other things).
Isaiah:
I'm glad you feel as you describe.
Let's remember, however, that this is in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
I have no problem with this because I do not attach any importance to these writings, but many religious people see them as the only description of reality.
Hugin:
This discussion developed as a result of your 12th response, which at least implicitly demanded that the scientists act differently to bring an end to the religionists' war on science.
I explained in my answers that scientists have no way of acting on the matter because it is a war whose motives and initiatives are all religious.
Michael:
I can only be responsible for myself with the limited or talented guarantee according to the standards of learning from myself and others, my developmental levels and my adaptation to changes in different situations/information.
I think I do understand you, but I am, in contrast to you, submissive:) or forgiving?:) to situations that are out of my control like :*them*,*you*,*us*, in the sweeping and imaginary ways..because I don't like control of any kind :in my mind/ My body/personality, apart from myself, myself and my perception of reality and in no way would I ever want to subjugate people to myself/my opinion, I have to 'express' myself from personal experience and learn.
As it is said (Psalms XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX) "How great are your works, O Lord, how deep are your thoughts: no one who is wicked will know and a fool will not understand this."
I do not feel threatened as such by the theory of evolution. It is a mechanism, amazing and elaborate and is not a cause in itself but a way of happening of things. I can only think of this as another of God's wonderful revelations.
Hugin:
I did not understand what your words refer to.
Did you finally understand who I meant when I said *them*?
Did you understand that the ability to prevent the war that *they* initiate is only in *them*'s hands?
Michael:
Nature has many, many observant and intelligent eyes, many hands and lots and lots of brains and more, so this is actually a story that never ends in terms of its issue and will never end.
In order to 'adapt' and survive in the natural world, which has no end, I would also use Darwin as an 'embarrassed teacher', in order to learn choices in default situations of 'my perceptions, first' - if they do not serve the typical nature that seeks His perfection. (Because the principle that guides me is: 'truth' is 'perfection', even if not in my time, and even if not only in my part, or my achievement.)
Hugin:
It's hard to tell if you're joking or if it's a joke stemming from a misunderstanding.
The scientist has no choice because what he discovered is what he discovered and nothing else.
Michael:
A scientist has no choice?? A scientist always has a natural choice :) and others always have the ability to make choices. :)
someone:
Tell me: if you want to know so much - why don't you go to study?
Hugin:
The scientist has no choice. He does not choose the truth he discovers and therefore has no ability to compromise on it.
He formulates his conclusions in the form of theories.
Theories, as we know, are defined as assumptions about which there is doubt.
The theories that are chosen are those that have been found to be the most likely and correspond to reality in the best way.
*They* are the religious ones who try to argue against science while basing themselves on the Holy Book in which they believe.
They have a choice. They decide on their own and without any supporting argument what the "truth" is that they will place against the discoveries of science.
They also claim to be the only moral people and believe that they have the right to impose their behavior and beliefs on others.
So these are *them* and as soon as *they* return to reason the war will disappear.
to someone somewhere
Where does this talk about the cars come from?
In your claim there is a deliberate deception and it is that you do not take into account the point of view
All life today on Earth and therefore as a comparison I will answer your claim:
In a hypothetical situation, if cars are dug up and they discover "fossils" of simpler cars and also simpler components and even almost the same source material, then they will conclude that there was an evolution of cars.
to roi-
"As well as bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, or E. coli bacteria that have evolved and are able to digest citrate (something that makes them a new species)." - Not exactly. In order to create a new protein (not to mention a new species) a new and fairly long nucleotide sequence is needed. The reason is because a simple mutation does not change the activity of the source of the protein. What happens in bacterial resistance is that the antibiotic is designed in advance to match a certain enzyme in the bacterium, and since a simple mutation can slightly change this match, the bacteria become resistant. The same is true of a nylon digestive gene, which according to the source I saw, it is probably In plasmid exchange, that means an existing gene.
Your analogy that fossils are equivalent to cars doesn't really work. Can cars mate with each other? Do the offspring of the cars have different characteristics from father and mother car? This is a fundamentally wrong analogy, which proves nothing. "-I answered that.
The thing you need to explain is where all these fossils came from, and why they appear in such a precise chronological order. How can you explain that the fossils of the ancient horses and whales appear in the order we would expect? How is it that we don't find ancient faces in a time when there were only bacteria according to evolution? Please explain it to me," - see the false theory I gave. And how do you explain that certain creatures remained unchanged for so long? Even so, there may have been worlds before ours. Well done...have a nice day.
Darwinism is nothing more than a broken replicating machine
lacks a direction that ultimately gives the number 0
If there is something common to all species, it is rational planning
Planning originates from the very essence of rational creation
which allows only a rational life
have a rational basis supported by rational concepts
By the very fact that the duplicating machine exists in the rational world
Its role as the role of the battery
An active current source for the realization of rational creation
Light, and I thought that according to the principle of relativity it is certainly possible to say that it is the sun that revolves around the earth...
Michael: UQ 🙂
I don't know that *they* are sweeping.
And I don't know about *you* or *us* Goref either.
I just know and am aware that there are many faces to human, scientific, religious, and intelligent dilemmas and all the 'dipa' of other people's opinions and opinions makes it difficult for us to reach constructive and fruitful understandings, so I have a prayer left in my heart that we will find ways to fill gaps between all the opinions, some of which are also 'ancient-rooted' unfortunately / and perhaps also for blessing,, of all shades of education and types of thinking.
War in my eyes in all its forms: narrow, and more narrow unfortunately. :)
Hugin:
The role of science is to arrive at a description of reality as reliable as possible.
It is not his role (and in fact he is not allowed) to pour anything into the description of reality - other than the description of reality itself.
Science is indeed based on a lot of rest of spirit, since without rest of spirit it is not possible to conceive the scientific theories, but the rationality that hurts you so much is an inseparable part of that rest of spirit.
It is also clear that the call to take steps to prevent war should not be addressed to the scientific community.
This is clear from the above reasons - this community should not distort the description of reality just to please people who are not interested in reality.
The war will stop as soon as people who have adopted an irrational approach to life - abandon this approach. Then *they* will stop the war just as *they* are initiating it today.
Something about evolution:
Cars are actually evolving.
This shows that the idea of evolution does not have to involve biology.
In fact, it can be said that they are evolving as actualized memes (I hope that those who read here have already read explanations on the subject of memes - I myself have written several of them here).
In fact, all that evolution requires is a replicating being that competes with others for resources, whose reproduction is not too accurate but also not too imprecise.
What is replication?
Duplication is the creation of another version of the entity, using the resources of the environment.
The environment of DNA is the environment of the cell. It is from him that DNA derives the resources for its creation and existence. It is coded in a way that is suitable for this and therefore it actually activates the environment in its favor.
The meme's environment is the brain and it draws its resources there.
The memes realized by man draw their resources from everything accessible to man.
The mathematical model of evolution works for everyone.
someone,
The term 'theory' is used to describe many well-proven ideas in science, including relativity and gravity.
As for the rest of your claims, I'm glad to hear that new functional proteins are created by mutations all the time. In order for a protein to be new, it is not necessary to produce it from scratch, but a small mutation that allows it to perform a new action, or under a different control than usual, is sufficient. The bacteria capable of breaking down nylon are one of the proofs of this, as well as bacteria resistant to antibiotics, or E. coli bacteria that have evolved and are able to digest citrate (which makes them a new species).
Your analogy that fossils are equivalent to cars doesn't really work. Can cars mate with each other? Do the offspring of the cars have different characteristics from father and mother car? This is a fundamentally wrong analogy, which proves nothing.
The thing you need to explain is where all these fossils came from, and why they appear in such a precise chronological order. How can you explain that the fossils of the ancient horses and whales appear in the order we would expect? How is it that we don't find ancient faces in a time when there were only bacteria according to evolution? Please explain this to me, without bringing God or aliens into the equation.
What is really interesting is why the majority of religious people do accept the fact that it went around the sun and not the other way around. This also contradicts religion (otherwise why did they want to burn Galileo?). Can any of the religious people please answer me?
But if only the soul of rest - spirit and soul of God
The rationale will merge into the nature of evolution and science
There is, and maybe the war will be brought to an end.
And a great and wide land will move with its Zio and Renan towards its future
After all, every road is laid out before you, to the end of every human soul,
Yes, there may or may not be a need for the ledge and ledge fighters,,,,
Dear Friends
The title of the article: "Does Darwinism need protection?"
The answer is: Yes, I said. need also need And not only Darwinism needs protection, but also all science and modern rationalistic thinking needs protection. Don't forget, the modern scientific revolution is at most about 500 years old, since the days of Galileo Galilei. The revolution or religious thinking, deterministic, total, omniscient, which gives tremendous social-governmental-economic power, in the hands of the religious establishment, well this method is thousands of years old. About 7,000-8,000 years at least, in the monotheistic Gilgolia, and perhaps tens of thousands of years, in the earlier, pagan Gilgolia.
The scientific-rational idea has not yet been disseminated or studied among the majority of the world's population (!!!) but only among a minority. This minority mainly includes considerable parts of the Jews and Christians from the Western countries and the members of the economic elite from the Eastern countries, who have acquired a Western education.
Today, the spearhead of the religious war in science is fundamentalist Islam, led by Iran and al-Qaeda. And their war, as we know, is not just an ideological war
but also a real war.
I will end with lines from the poem of the national poet
, Chaim Nachman Bialik, "When does he speak" (When from the tongue of death). "…..there is still a long way to go,
The war is still long,
May you rest...
But before you is a slice
A big and wide country..."
Someone from somewhere:
what?! Have you checked the site so many times and you still don't know what science is?
Don't you know that all science creates are theories and that these theories are never proven?
You really can't prove anything.
Can you prove that I didn't create you a second ago, along with all your memories and that on that occasion I also created all the others with matching memories and also made sure to match all the "evidence" in the field - all this just to confuse you and make you believe the false claim that you also existed Yesterday?
Of course you can't prove that you existed yesterday and actually this is also just a theory - just like evolution.
Lemoti-where did you see evidence of genetic development there? It is natural selection. Natural selection does not create anything, it only selects. As far as I know - no new functional protein has been documented yet. This includes bacteria and antibiotics, nylon digestion, lizards that have undergone changes in the visiting genes, etc.
To someone from somewhere, to Oren and the commenter from Bar Ilan. Sorry no proof is enough for you, and as if there is any proof for your God. But what to do, the scientists continue to work and produce more and more proofs every day. Even on this site, studies confirming evolution such as these have appeared
https://www.hayadan.org.il/challenges-one-of-the-most-long-standing-theories-about-how-species-evolve-in-the-oceans-0501093/
Or this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/red-quins-littl-krils-and-parasite-bacteria-2801092/
Or even that
https://www.hayadan.org.il/stinking-evolution-1912085/
The only "scientist" I know who denies all this evidence as well as plate tectonics is the honorable doctor professor with 50 years of academic study, Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak.
No real evidence has yet been presented to Moti, otherwise it would have long since become a theory. In order to show this, let's take for example a false theory in advance
For example, the theory of the evolution of cars - the deeper you dig, the more you will come across "fossils" of simpler cars as well as simpler components and even almost the same starting material. Hence they evolved from each other. And it is true that cars today do not have the ability to replicate and mutate, but maybe those cars back then There were these abilities, and they were created by aliens with our own advanced technology. Now prove me wrong, you won't succeed. That's why there are also many reservations about evolution.
This is an article that claims to represent the position of science but it does not do so at all.
It was written by an organization (Theos) which is a religious organization and its religious goals are also reflected in the text before us.
The article tries to present an apparent similarity between the unjustified link that people made between evolution and social Darwinism, and another - allegedly unjustified - link that is made today - the link between evolution and our diagnosis between good and evil.
They say that just as it was not justified to throw away the theory of evolution just because people associated it with social Darwinism (and only social Darwinism should have been simply thrown away) - today as well - it is not justified to throw away all of evolution and one should throw away only the (amazingly confirmed) claims about It is sad that our diagnosis between good and evil is at the hands of evolution.
It is a deliberate lie whose entire purpose is to train the religion's followers.
Evolution as a proven natural phenomenon must be separated from all kinds of philosophies that have not been scientifically proven, such as the human species was created from the amoeba by statistical coincidences of the development of species or philosophies about the starting point of evolution - how was the first living creature created? - which is an important and main question - in which evolution has no Evidence, but only hypotheses.
.
The commenter from Bar Ilan has a right point for a simple reason, the debate is not between theoretical positions but between reality and imagination, and while evolution has billions of proofs, the ancestor does not have a single proof.
Therefore, there is no need to listen to the commandments invented in his name by those who used them to control an ignorant public.
Point, don't use nonsensical reasoning:
For most people, the need to believe in the figure of an ancestor who guards and watches over us is stronger than curiosity and the desire to explore the truth.
In the same way it can be argued:
For most people, the need to get rid of any higher command and do as they please is stronger than healthy scientific skepticism.
Use logical arguments and not baseless slanders.
For most people, the need to believe in the figure of an ancestor who guards and watches over us is stronger than curiosity and the desire to explore the truth.
Today's £10 ain't what it used to be.
It is good to see that more and more people are disillusioned with the illusion of an easy and simple solution and choose to examine things in a more scientific - skeptical way. Especially when it comes to a theory that has not yet been sufficiently proven.