Comprehensive coverage

The anti-science crusade in America is getting stronger

A law passed in Louisiana and laws pending in Tennessee seek to teach creationism instead of evolution in public schools * In Kentucky, the governor approved tax breaks for an amusement park based on the science of the story of Noah's Ark 

A flyer describing the theme park based on the story of Noah's Ark being built in Kentucky. PR photo
A flyer describing the theme park based on the story of Noah's Ark being built in Kentucky. PR photo

Although there is no direct connection between the creative harassment and the reduction of the US investment in space, it is likely that both things stem from the same reason - there is no stupidity, it is all out.

The article "The Creation Crusade" published by Rob Boston in the July-August 2011 issue of Church & State magazine reviews the recent battles in legislatures in various states in the US and in other arenas regarding the study of evolution.

Anti-evolutionary laws in Tennessee - Act 368, which passed the Tennessee House of Representatives in April 2011 and its counterpart - Act 893, which is frozen in that state's Senate until it reconvenes in 2012, have been described as showing increasing sophistication on the part of activists determined to change the way biology is taught to align with religious dogma .”

The article also discusses attempts to repeal anti-evolutionary laws. Zach Coughlin, a student at Baton Rouge High School leading the repeal effort, told the Journal: “I've always wanted to repeal this law. When he passed, friends and family all over the US read about him in the New York Times and it was very embarrassing. The law not only affects my prestige among friends and family. Louisiana has a reputation for being anti-science, so this makes it difficult for Louisiana students to get the groundbreaking science jobs they want.”

The article also cites a survey conducted by Michael Berkman and Eric Flutzer of high school teachers and found that only 28% believed that evolution is right, while 60% were cautious about teaching evolution mainly due to pressure in their communities. The vice president of NCSE - the National Center for Science Education, Glenn Branch, commented: "Teachers need to know that they need to support the unequivocal study of evolution in the scientifically accurate way, without compromising or refining the studies due to the opposition of those who reject evolution for religious reasons."

After mentioning that not all people who consider themselves religious are opposed to evolution, Boston concluded by quoting Barry Lynn, the director of the American Association for the Separation of Religion and State, himself an ordained minister. "The religious right intends to replace the study of science in public schools with the lessons taught in religious Sunday schools," Lin said. Freedom of religion and good science are on the same side of the fence. That is why we must say these things publicly.”

Fighting evolution provides big money for the religious right. In Kentucky, a creationist church known as "Answers in Genesis" opened a creationism museum in 2007 at a cost of 25 million dollars. Three years later they registered the millionth visitor.

The museum was so successful that this organization and several groups close to it proposed opening a theme park based on the story of Noah's Ark in Williamston, Kentucky. Despite the church's dubious science — the group believes dinosaurs carried the ark and even said unicorns once existed — Gov. Steve Bashir responded enthusiastically, promising a package of tax breaks to make the park's vision a reality. In May, senior members of the Kentucky Tourism Cabinet voted to grant more than $40 million in tax credits to Box Park, as part of the Kentucky Tourism Incentive Act.

For the full article

And if you thought that it was only in the south that the enthusiasm fell, what will the residents of northern New Hampshire say, when two legislators in the state seek to allow or even require the study of creationism in schools.
David Brooks, a columnist in the Nushua Telegraph published in New England writes that in science classes science should be taught, meaning the cumulative knowledge discovered through scientific methods. There is no scientific evidence to support any kind of idea that life was deliberately created by an intelligent being, so this idea does not belong in science classes.
In class or philosophy and even history and literature, there is no problem teaching these ideas but not in science classes.
It turns out that New Hampshire has been a quiet scene in the field since 1994 when the Merrimack school board tried to introduce the subject into the city's curriculum, but since then the subject has not made headlines.
However, surveys continue to show that about a third of the public, and possibly more, believe in the basic principles of creationism, especially in the context of the Old Testament (the Koran contains a similar story). Several states are fighting a variety of laws that try to dilute the study of evolution, so it doesn't surprise Davis that New Hampshire's fate has not been spared either.
Both bills are still in draft status. The fear is that if the two proposals are combined they could become law.

164 תגובות

  1. I popped in to visit, I need to visit here more often, and I really enjoy it. Meanwhile, it seems that all opponents of evolution, which is not at all surprising, believe in God and/or support religion. What is interesting is how all these enthusiasts from the religious/faith side of the map suddenly disappear when they receive clear, serious, good answers and have no answers unless spewing propaganda and bad arguments is considered an "answer". Well this is clear because it is usually easy for them to deal with the "man from the street" whose ignorance is known and therefore he is also a candidate from hundreds to deteriorate into religion. ("Repentance" is a religious term that distorts and castrates the essence of the act...)
    A similar phenomenon exists on the "Deat-Emet" website, where believers/religious people also appear for a short time and after they have answered, they become silent and disappear. It turns out that it is typical of these types of people when they get serious answers. This is because the basis of their belief is false, wrong and misguided.
    And I will not end without a few "pearls" from the "treasure of wisdom" of the religion that is not the Gemara:
    The fox has poison in its claws:
    Lice are created from inanimate matter - human sweat, from the mold, etc.:
    Dear Levi and his friends in the faith and the path - do you really think that it is appropriate to abandon science and evolution in favor of these vanities and their ilk in the Talmud and the Jewish religious tradition?????????????????????

  2. Levi (July 17, 2011 at 10:01 am)

    You wrote "the lie is immediately exposed" and then you referred to a video in which Kent Hobind, a creationist and convicted fraud, demonstrated in his lectures and discussions in which he participated his poor level of scientific knowledge and broken (but entertaining) logic. Yes, this is the same Hobind who denies accepted theories of modern physics and chemistry (such as cosmology and cosmochemistry) and accepted and well-confirmed explanations such as the way stars are formed as well as the laws of formation and the transition between elements. The same Hobind offers his own delusional theory that, apart from the "holy" scriptures, is not really supported in the world of reality in which we live. He doesn't even really answer what Michael Shermer brings up at the beginning of that video. The fact that there are cases where there are only a few bones out of the entire skeleton is not related to the many cases where there are detailed findings (and I mentioned above where they can be found) which include skeletons, amber fossils. Of course, even if all of these did not exist, there are thousands of independent evidences for the very same conclusion (that of evolution, of course) on additional levels - genetic, biochemical, anatomical and even behavioral, all by the way independent of each other. You, out of your ignorance, say that something doesn't exist even though it exists and exists in museums and scientific articles, whether it's in the transition from life in water to land and back, whether it's in the transition to flight, whether it's in the transition from reptile-like vertebrates to mammal-like vertebrates, whether it's in the changes that occurred in the limbs and whether It's changes that occurred in the skull (only the examples regarding the changes that occurred in the jaws are amazing). This is without mentioning the documented changes in invertebrates (marine and terrestrial) and plants from thousands of fossil finds and amber blocks. I recommend you (and any skeptic on this subject) to do a simple thing: go to a serious nature museum and look for yourself in the fossil collections, read the original articles on the Internet that describe and document the fossil finds or those preserved in amber, look for yourself at the skeletons including those of creatures that exist today, for example in vertebrates, compare their anatomical structure, the number and order of bones, the types of joints and their relative position. Do you seriously claim that you have a better scientific explanation for all of this than common descent and a process of natural selection (which is not random or random at all) that leads to a gradual transition between different forms? Can you present this alternative theory?

    You wrote in a previous comment: "In evolution, the essence of man is merely chemical components created in a meaningless way"
    To that I answered what I answered and then you wrote: "You usually try to distance yourself from the problem by giving it another name - abiogenesis, which of course is part of evolution."

    A. Your first sentence is stupid not because we have no reason to assume that man is "all chemical components", in fact all the evidence supports this possibility and I have never understood why people are so offended by this, are their self-esteem so low that they need descriptions of miracles and wonders Supernatural and unreal to acknowledge the awesomeness of their existence? The reason the sentence you wrote is stupid, and wrong, is because of its ending. No one who understands evolution claims that things were created, and of course continue to be created, in a meaningless way, where do you get this stupid statement from?
    B. Evolution is the mechanism in which, given living creatures with an imperfect inheritance mechanism (that is, that allows for variation) and given a living environment in which resources are limited (that is, not all can survive), natural selection occurs when there is an advantage to those that are better suited to their environment and produce more fertile offspring (that are slightly different from their parents). Abiogenesis is the stage in which life arose from inanimate matter. It is true that there is disagreement regarding the exact definition of what a living thing is (what is the minimum set of features that meets the criterion), but once such a definition exists, the processes can be separated. For example, if the ability to self-replicate would be the only condition, then the first molecule that possessed this property and created inaccurate copies of itself in an environment that did not have unlimited resources would be the starting point of life. In this case everything that happened up to that moment will belong to abiogenesis and what happened later will belong to evolution. On what basis do you mix the two things?

    You wrote: "What was in the cloudy puddle of water except for chemicals?" - I don't know... probably nothing, in any case there is currently no reason to assume that there was anything else there.

    You wrote: "What does it mean to you when the banana is a relative of yours?" - Well what? Are you trying to insert your feelings of inferiority here again? What is the connection if the banana or the cockroach or the bacterium is a relative (among other things according to clear signs that a common evolutionary origin is the only scientific explanation that currently exists) and between all the wonderful things that make a person human, such as feelings and thoughts and creativity and music and art and philosophy and science and technology and just helping others So without receiving a return? How does this inevitable conclusion diminish the awesomeness and splendor of our existence here? How will rejecting this inevitable conclusion improve anything or give any sublime meaning to all human ills and all the horrible things that man has done and is doing, for example, in the name of religion? You remind me of those who resisted at the time to give up the image of the world as if the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. How difficult it was then for those poor people to recognize that we are not in such a special place in the universe, as if recognizing this simple fact takes away from the specialness of our very existence for us. Even then, there must have been people who feared that if we accepted that horrible fact there would be nothing that would form a basis for moral behavior, but see it's a miracle, the fellow scientists who accept without choice both the uniqueness of the earth as a celestial gram in the universe and, mercifully, the shadow of the theory of evolution, are creative people, some of them engaged in art and music, most of them are distinct socialites who are always ready to help others, whether they are their family members, friends or just people who need help and all this without needing a guidebook to tell them what is good and what is bad and if it is permissible or not to murder, rape, steal...

    You wrote: "Once it's your foundation - you can't build meaning on it."
    My dear, it is obvious that you do not understand at all what my and my friend's basis is, just tell me please, why are you trying to blame us for your ignorance and brain problems?

    You wrote: "It's like putting a lion behind the cage in the zoo - and demanding that it behave like a lion" - what are you talking about for your sake? I can think of at least three different ways how to connect this sentence to the things we wrote, don't you have something more vague? Maybe some verse from the Bible?

    You wrote: "Did you have a child with mental retardation? He is not suitable, he must be got rid of (eugenics), etc."
    Did we say ignorance? Does the theory of evolution guide or assert how one should behave? Definately not! Are there people (sometimes even religious) who will use scientific theories in a distorted way to derive behavioral guidelines from them? Happened too many times unfortunately. But your antics reminded me of a family story that happened with us. We have an ultra-Orthodox branch of the family (which is distant, happily) and they had a retarded child, as happens from time to time with both secular and religious people, surprisingly with similar frequency. Those relatives sent the child to the USA to some institution and it was no longer known that a child came to Israel. Why do we do this you ask? The reason is simple and was well presented by one aunt of those people, when she was asked why they handed the child over and did not take care of him: "Why destroy such a beautiful family?" It turned out that in the ultra-Orthodox world, a retarded child is a bad sign that hurts the chances of a match for the other religious descendants of the family, so it is much easier to eliminate the "problem" and that way everyone is satisfied (almost). This is another pearl in the moral crown of the ultra-Orthodox.

    You wrote: "No one tries to push Judaism in science classes."
    A. Rightly so, because there is no connection between this religion and science. And when one of her fools says something about this world, it turns out to be abnormal nonsense, gross errors that have nothing to do with the observed reality, and then all kinds of other fools are required to clarify and interpret what that original fool actually meant to say so that things correspond to what is revealed in science. There are many enlightening examples both in the field of cosmology and in the field of anatomy and physiology and in other fields such as the way certain animals are formed, their mating and breeding methods, and everything is seasoned with a lot of imagination and tastelessness and nothing to do with the observed reality. And this garbage is not usually pushed in science classes, but pushed in large quantities in religion classes and yeshivas, and when these poor children and boys are bombarded with so much nonsense such as wrong facts, crooked logic and shocking moral values, it is not surprising that these are the qualities that characterize many of the religious people here.

    You wrote: "But the "theory" of evolution (except for microevolution) which has nothing scientific about it - you do try to push it into science classes,"
    Your ignorance and twisted logic is amazing. Evolution as a process is an existing fact just like stones that slide down a slope and apples that fall from trees, it is not even just a matter of science but of a simple observation that in the case of evolution additional reinforcements are added such as a mathematical proof that evolution as a process is bound to be a reality under the given conditions. The theory of evolution, which offers a possible (and currently only) explanation for a huge collection of facts, does this with amazing success. This theory relies on the same scientific method from which every scientific theory grows (including one that offers the force of gravity as a possible explanation for the observed facts I mentioned earlier). There is not a single theory today, neither in physics, nor in chemistry, nor in biology, including evolution, that has been achieved in any other way than the scientific method. If you don't like the scientific method, then please abandon all the knowledge and technology that came from it, let's see how long you can survive on your Tanach book.
    And as for the wrong distinction you make between microevolution and macroevolution, come on? Are you not familiar with gradual processes in which small changes accumulate into significant and qualitatively different changes? Do you really not know how a star is formed from dust clumping together due to gravitational forces? Don't you know how Mount Everest was formed? Don't you know how a pebble is formed? Or maybe you think that all these were created by some flying dog like they are?

    Yes, the dog is buried here, that's the point, no! It's the dog's bone, but the dog died a long time ago, so what can I do?! (And thanks to Danny Sanderson and the Hive)

  3. Levi:
    I am not ignored at all.
    The extent of my opacity will be evidenced by many achievements that this is not the place to detail them.
    The extent of your opacity, on the other hand, is evidenced, among other things, by the fact that you thought you could lie and call me a liar and that I would continue to ignore your idiocy, which you persistently demonstrate throughout your responses.

    I see no point in raising additional arguments after you made sure to ignore everything that was explained to you and your ilk.

    Each of the questions you have ever raised will be answered even in this discussion and I assume that even if they answer you 100 more times you will continue your way.

    That's why I wish you continued golden dreams.

  4. You are eventually ignored because you are as opaque as a brick.
    By the way, I'm not well.

    "Intermediate stages in the soil, which indeed do exist and are abundant"
    You repeat it like a mantra - and when you ask for an example, and you bring it - the lie is immediately exposed

    "You wrote: "In evolution, the essence of man is merely chemical components created in a meaningless way."
    Besides this sentence being idiotic and wrong, it shows how much you do not understand what the evolutionary mechanism is and what the theory of evolution is about. "

    You usually try to distance yourself from the problem by giving it another name - abiogenesis
    Which of course is part of evolution.

    What was in the cloudy puddle of water besides the chemicals?
    What does it mean to you when the banana is your relative?

    Once it is your foundation - you cannot build meaning on it.
    It's like putting a lion behind the cage in the zoo - and demanding that it behave like a lion

    "Necessarily does not know the difference between good and bad"

    What good and bad? There is the appropriate and the inappropriate in evolution.
    You can not dance on two weddings.
    Did you have a child with mental retardation? He is not suitable, he must be disposed of (eugenics), etc.

    No one tries to push Judaism in science classes.
    Therefore there is no argument at all.
    But the "theory" of evolution (except for microevolution) which has nothing scientific about it - you do try to push it into science classes,
    Here lies the dog.

  5. withering:
    I have an answer to at least one of your wishes.
    You asked Levi "What actually made you write the nonsense you wrote in your response?"
    And the answer is that what caused him is exactly what caused his friends to engage in forging identity cards or stealing money from the public coffers or committing sexual offenses against children under their supervision or engaging in life-threatening violence such as throwing stones at moving cars.

    It is about that feeling of superiority that rests on pure ignorance.

    By the way, you noticed that he wants a video that shows him the entire course of the development of life since the creation of the universe and rejects evolution because there is no such film, but that does not prevent him from believing that he is a descendant of Avraham Avino even though he cannot even point to the graves of all his ancestors from Avraham Avino to this day ?

  6. Lalevy (July 15, 2011 at 7:41 am)
    Regarding the "claims" regarding existing facts and observations, I do not feel the need to refer to the lies you wrote. Your claim, for example, that there are no "intermediate phases in the soil", which indeed do exist and are abundant, can stem from ignorance or curiosity. I don't think you are one of the first because even just on this site there have already been so many references and links on the subject that you have to be completely sealed in order not to know them. It goes without saying that what has been presented here are only examples on the tip of the fork, anyone interested in finding thousands of examples can reach them with varying ease, from the easy to the difficult, in the popular literature on evolution, in nature museums around the world, to detailed scientific research articles in paleontology and evolution. Of course, you won't find these examples on the websites of various creationists.

    You wrote: "In evolution, the essence of man is nothing but chemical components created in a meaningless way."
    Besides this sentence being idiotic and wrong, it shows how much you do not understand what the evolutionary mechanism is and what the theory of evolution is about.

    Then you drew an even more stupid and wrong conclusion from that sentence - you wrote: "You are meaningless no matter what you do - and that's where the behavioral heck comes from on all levels whether consciously or not."
    It's amazing to see how some people are so insecure about themselves that if someone outside (even if it's just a book) doesn't tell them their lives have meaning something terrible will happen to them. Equally amazing is the reliance on the same sources as the Urim and the Thoms on the subject of morality, as if those who do not believe in religious morality (which in many cases are distorted to the point of nausea) necessarily do not know how to distinguish between good and evil. This is especially funny in light of the fact that there are so many religious people who act immorally, from lying and stealing to rape and murder. I feel sorry for you, Levi, if this is the conclusion you have reached, it reveals the fragility of your self-confidence in the meaning of your existence and also reveals your shaky morality which depends on all kinds of external "crutches".

    In your opinion, how is the behavioral effect manifested in those who are convinced that evolution is the only scientific explanation for a huge variety of phenomena we see around us? Don't they get up on the bus in front of pregnant women? Are they engaged in forging identity cards or stealing money from the public purse? Or maybe they commit sexual offenses against children under their care? Do they engage in life-threatening violence such as throwing stones at moving cars? What actually made you write the nonsense you wrote in your response?

  7. By the way, Levy, Shalom also fell silent in the face of the counter-evidence.
    It turns out that in the absence of a factual reasoning, he is now back with all the nonsense again under the name Levi.

  8. Levi:
    You're an idiot, it's just a pleasure.
    Even if I lied for the sake of evolution (which I do not do - not all the way and not even for one word, you are probably confusing me with you) - this would not mean that the theory of evolution has behavioral difficulties.
    Do you understand? At the stage of evolution I am in, it is already possible to understand logic.
    Maybe one of your descendants in the future will develop to this level as well.

    Of course, you didn't take any of what was said to you seriously.
    The truth is that it was obvious in advance because you clearly have nothing to say. This is also the reason you turned to the path of slander.
    As long as you don't pay attention to what you have been told, there is no point in writing anything new to you and you should just give it to you in your head as you try, very pathetically, to do to others.

    This strawman of yours is also quite a sleepwalker and he is one of the founders of the AIDS Denial Association.

    It's okay - all delusional people draw encouragement from each other.

  9. Again you take a misinterpretation. Even when Mendel's laws of genetics were rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century, some claimed that they contradicted the theory of evolution, and there were wars between Mendel's supporters and Darwin's supporters, and in the end everyone came to know that the things fit together. Epigenetics (the different expression of apparently identical genes) also fits into the general picture of evolution. Evolution doesn't really care how it achieves variation, whether it's genetic drift, epigenetics, normal inheritance, or even if Lamarck's method were to hold. What is important is the very fact that there is genetic diversity that allows further splitting into separate species.
    It is a fact that Darwin could formulate the theory of evolution after he understood the genetic issue in practice without knowing how it works at all.

    Even from the philosophical point of view, there is no substitute for evolution. It is pure science without any flaw, whereas all its competitors are beliefs in invisible and immeasurable things such as soul.
    I know many atheists who have a much better soul (in the sense of kindness) than many religious people who believe in the existence of a soul as an essence separate from the body.

  10. Response to both of you:

    "The theory of evolution does not include any behavioral reeds. "
    You lie for her all the way:

    The existence of the soul has innumerable scientific confirmations as shown by commenter Shalom at the top of the comments.
    Your mind game in your article contradicts the observations and leaves the world of science before you have even started.

    Evolution also stands in contrast to observations at the DNA level as well
    Link to the full article in Nature Biotechnology below.

    Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology:

    "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.”

    "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells."

    "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution."

    "Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.”

    "The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations."

    "It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determining how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA.”

    "The rules... of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other.”

    "We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level - from DNA to protein - it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling."

    "Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome.

  11. Levi:
    Your words are of course one big nonsense.
    Evolution and common descent have countless confirmations.
    See for example this:

    On the other hand, the "soul theory" that you raised has many refutations, and you are welcome to read here:

    And also listen to what Professor Sompolinsky (the ultra-Orthodox!) says:

    The theory of evolution does not include any behavioral reed. It's just your delusion.
    On the other hand, as you saw above - what Judaism claims about the essence of man is total nonsense, therefore it is not surprising that it also instills in him the This morality

  12. A response to Levi.
    Let's start from the end. The quotes you gave are from the 20s. Haven't genes, DNA, the structure of DNA, chromosomes, the lateral transfer of genes, genetic drift, epigenetics and many other things been discovered since then that could disprove evolution but all of them, absolutely all of them without exception fit into the evolutionary explanation and enrich it.
    Your spiritual explanation is not acceptable as science, because there is no ability to prove or disprove the existence of a holy or unholy spiritual entity. As for the intermediate stages, first you see countless such creatures, but until they run you through the whole movie from beginning to end, you probably won't believe it. In addition, appearance is not the only feature that can be measured today. It is possible to test a genetic relationship by comparing sequences, and in this way you actually see that all creatures are related to each other, which indicates a common origin of all life.
    Evolution meets all the criteria of science, including the theoretical possibility of refutation, and since every experiment is designed to disprove existing theories, and it has done so for over 150 years and billions of experiments, it is probably true, at least for me it is reasonable enough. Religion has brought nothing to humanity, only wars.

  13. The word religion is mentioned in the Bible only from the period of the Jews' yeshiva in Persia onwards.

    The theory of evolution does not include laws of behavior, but rather behavioral
    In evolution, the essence of man is nothing but chemical components created in a meaningless way.
    You are meaningless no matter what you do - and that's where the behavioral hiccups come from at all levels
    Whether consciously or unconsciously.

    In contrast to Judaism which claims that the essence of man is a holy spirit that was created with the first intention
    And you must find your way back to this holiness.

    And so there is certainly an ideological/behavioral conflict here.

    If indeed there was evolution, all species came from one source
    We should have seen without difficulty the infinite intermediate stages within the earth.
    And of course there are none.

    Changes within each species separately were indeed observed and therefore it fits into the scientific category.

    All the rest of the theory of evolution is the hand of the imagination - and between it and science there is only wishful thinking

    Sometimes there are also honest evolutionists:

    Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, confesses, "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

    George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way.

  14. To discuss - why in biology class because biology is science and science is taught in science class. What is unclear about this?

  15. Dan Argaman:
    Did you even read the discussion here?
    First of all - know that religion - by its very definition - includes rules of conduct.
    That is why it is called a religion.
    The word religion originates from Persian and means "law".
    Therefore - by definition - there are not two religions here.

    But that's not what you meant.
    You meant faith versus faith.
    But one of the beliefs that supposedly argues with the other - you invented yourself - because there is no one here who claimed that the world was created alone and randomly.
    All that happened here was that religious people jumped against evolution and reasonable people jumped on the other side and showed them wrong.

  16. Crusade is a precise definition. When religion fights religion, it's a crusade.
    There is no proof that the world was created randomly. There is also no proof that the world was created without the involvement of an intelligent agent.
    Those who believe that this is how the world was created alone and randomly, want to preach their faith in the schools at the expense of the tax payer, and shout the cry of the robbed Cossack.
    Filled in literature or history classes, it could be thought of. (Maybe in a science fiction class) but why in a biology class.

  17. Machel

    In my response to "The Whisperer" I wanted to add the sentence: "Since I have nothing to do with your response (after Makhal answered you) I chose to "analyze" your response." Now I realize that I really should have written this down because the response was misunderstood.

    "The Whisperer"

    First of all don't shout.
    Secondly, I hope that you too will eventually be able to think "straight just like him".

    Regarding your response, you write:
    "What exactly is twisted? The fact that I agreed with Michael that evolution should be taught but not go head-to-head in convincing people that one should learn only from science in order to progress?"

    Yes, this is exactly the distortion.
    First - Machal thinks that evolution should be taught, but he disagrees that: "evolution should be taught but not go head-to-head in convincing people that you only need to learn from science in order to progress".
    If you ask him I'm sure he'll agree to that.

    Second - you continued to write: "Or the fact that I think that many smart people is not good because the economy will suffer and then chaos will be created?"

    How do you know that many smart people will hurt the economy?
    This is a delusional statement on a wrong basis.
    Check your words again: will a lot of stupid people save/help the economy?
    Do you think smart people become stupid when it comes to the economy?
    If there are a lot of smart people, in your opinion, that's exactly when the economy will suffer, and not when there are a lot of stupid people?
    What, the wise won't be wise to take advantage of the economic situation in order to improve it and the fools will actually be wise?
    Do you understand where the absurdity is in your -reality-distorting- question?

    You go on to write: "I'm not the first person to say this, and certainly not the last."
    Right. You're not the first fool to think like that.

    What you are suggesting is: sometimes not considering logic.
    This is evident in your responses. Like the senseless saying: "I think that many smart people is not good because the economy will suffer and then chaos will be created."

    Do you understand?
    Or do you think so "straight" that more "straight" than your logic cannot be?
    Do you understand now why already in your first response you got burned (just like all the other fools who whisper nonsense)?

  18. By the way, the whisperer:
    I did not "scatter" here comments regarding a ghost.
    In fact, only part of one and only response (with the addition of a brief clarification in a subsequent response) touched on his issue.
    Neither do exaggerations of this kind (or the kind of claim as if I said that I made him think exactly like me) do not contribute to a meaningful discussion.

  19. the whisperer:
    I didn't say I made ghosts think exactly like me.
    I said I made him grow up and adopt a more rational approach to life.

    It is a known fact that students develop sympathy for valued teachers and to my delight - this is the status I acquired in his eyes.

    But appreciation - and I'm telling you - Ghost - causes a person to react emotionally when the object of his evaluation is attacked.
    You should be aware of this in yourself as well and not be dragged along by this natural tendency.
    One of the characteristics of an emotional response is the attempt to analyze the psychology of your interlocutor and this characteristic stood out in your recent responses.

  20. What are you, some messenger of Michael from the science site? Just yesterday he spread your comments here how he managed to make you think straight just like him.

    You didn't even pay attention to what I wrote, you are just as brainwashed as Dos Hanuyk who just left a lecture in Bnei Brak.

    distort reality? What exactly is distorted? The fact that I agreed with Michael that evolution should be taught but not go head-to-head in convincing people that one should only learn from science in order to progress?

    Or is it that I think that many smart people is not good because the economy will suffer and then chaos will be created? I'm not the first person to say this, and I certainly won't be the last.

    In all 2 of your comments you threw sentences without knowing what you were saying, I saw quotes from Michael from your mouth, and nothing else, you are pathetic.

    Hope people don't get burned like you are.

  21. the whisperer
    According to the "analysis" of your response, I find that your attitude towards reality characterizes people who tend to commit crimes and forgive themselves for the offense quite easily.
    I see that you have no problem sometimes lying or distorting reality just to convey your message, which most of the time is false.

  22. Michael, I agree with you.
    I also think that the approach of the "whisperer" is a fundamentally wrong approach, because it can ultimately lead to wrongdoing.

  23. And I tell you, dear readers, that what the whisperer offers you is also one way.
    It may not be really defined because it is based on the fact that language turns off logic, but in the end it is one way, less good than the way of logic.

    After all, what does the scientific approach say? Try, check and don't just believe anything.

    Those who tell you to abandon the scientific approach here and there are basically telling you - sometimes, when you feel like it, just believe without any testing.

  24. I don't want to just throw out percentages, but I think I once saw that the number of people who don't change their minds about a certain topic in some debate exceeds 85 percent.

    I already warn you that you may waste a lot of time with arguments because most of the debaters will not be convinced, especially religious people.

    I think my greatness as a human being is to ask and say: Did the person I argued with change my opinion a bit?
    Regarding our debate, I say that I will serve a line of thought about whether more smart people in the world is actually a good thing, I still think the same, but do not rule out the option you presented, as it might have been before our debate.

    In any case, I will end here and tell both you and all the readers who may be following our comments to examine the reality for themselves and not follow Doss who tells them to repent, but also not after scientists who think that science is the only or the main thing that can be learned and developed from.

    Actually, who am I to tell you how to think and what to do? Especially people who have been thinking and walking a certain way for so many years and have already passed their 30s. My chances of changing your mind are zero, all the debate here is for the people who are on the internet in the wee hours of the night digging for comments, those who have not yet decided what they believe.

    To all those people: don't be impressed by people who support one way with such strong power, learn little by little what you think about this world and don't try to take other people with you.

  25. the whisperer:
    You wrote "I say that smart people is only good if it solves the problem of wars for you completely"?
    You wrote!
    So you talked about percentages. In fact, you were talking about an exact number of percent - the number 100.

    If you read the list of possibilities I gave regarding the authors of unreliable books (I assume you did but you are currently engaging in pure demagoguery) you will see that I also included the possibility of a liar and not just a fool or an ignoramus.

    Of course, in relation to the knowledge that exists today - the writers of the Torah were also ignorant, but what they were mainly liars.

    But really - if you haven't understood by now - I'm sorry for my time.

  26. Schmitz:
    Evolution is confirmed by many findings and even if you personally are unable to explain something - it does not mean that it has no explanation.
    Of course, in the case before us, the matter is much simpler because the figure you are trying to sell and base your reservation on (with crooked logic) is simply a false figure.
    Those who want to read about the development of the script are invited to enter Wikipedia instead of Shmispedia.
    There, in the chapter History of writing systems you will find the correct facts

  27. I wasn't talking about percentages of a solution to wars. Once the majority of the world becomes smarter then the wars will disappear by themselves.
    And this is not a prophecy at all, what does it have to do with robbing banks? I was talking about an imbalance in the world economy that may occur due to excess competition on the market.

    If you haven't understood by now, I don't expect you to answer me that you suddenly have an idea of ​​what I'm talking about.
    In my opinion, you go about your business and don't look left or right.

    You also cannot say that the person who wrote the Bible is stupid or ignorant (if that is what you were trying to say), on the contrary, he is very wise because he knew that writing the book would give him control over the stupid people who lived in those times.

    And when I say that I can learn about the Bible, I can mean many things, about parables, about wisdom scrolls such as Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs, which do not teach me anything about science and progress, but yes about other things on which many materials in modern literature were also based, perhaps For you to learn things related to the arts professions is nonsense, for me and for other people it really does not indicate a lack of progress or anything else.

    It is impossible to learn discoveries from old books that will also help science and human development, but there are many other things that can be learned.

    Just for you - if the Bible did not exist, it is likely that people in those times would not have had anything to depend on, because then they really did not have any means to even ask the questions that exist today, at the time they had to have a certain god to look at every step they take. And it was very good for the unstable people that when they knew that there is someone who is looking at them and examining everything they do then they cannot do "bad" things because as soon as they do something not according to what God commanded, they will be punished - from this point of view only the ten commandments are enough for me.

    For that time, this method was genius, we assume that without a reasonable rule book because all people could do whatever they want, and even if at first it started only in one country, after that it developed all over the world with Christianity or any other community that holds a religion with one God .

    You can say that ignorance is where it is today because of the Bible, but if it wasn't the Bible then it would be something else.

    Even if now a new species of intelligent beings like humans develops on another planet, believe me it will take them a very long time to realize that their world is not flat, and until all their agreements become myths it will take many years. By then they will have invented a religion and a book of laws for themselves to maintain a more orderly world, because opening government offices and in general establishing an orderly government in past times does not seem as logical as it is today, a book with a God who rules the world and looks at each and every one individually is one solution .

    I do not agree with you that you mislead the Bible in such a way, in general it can be said that I agree with you in most of the things you say and it is not currently related to the debate between us.

    Personally, it's just a shame that on this site you sometimes walk with your head against the wall, because it's just a shame, the site itself is really great.

  28. I haven't read so many slanders not committed to reality in a long time. I'm starting to feel that the talkies here are rising to the level of a star born and Big Brother - creationism against evolution...

    My Ashish opinion is that evolution is not possible for one obvious reason - there is evidence of cave paintings from over 15,000 years ago (carbon dating), but writing and languages ​​all appeared, together, about 6,000 years ago, on all continents, independently.

    Hmmm.. If you have a convincing explanation, I'd love to read it. Other responses, including those that do not answer the substance of the matter, there are enough here in the responses.

  29. the whisperer:
    It seems to me that there is a case of insistence at all costs.
    What is this nonsense "I say that smart people is only good if it solves the problem of wars for you completely"

    And what if it only solves the problem of wars by 90%? it's bad? Are you opposed to something that would prevent 90% of wars?

    And this prophecy - as if they will fight over other things - does it come from some divine revelation? After all, it has no logical or factual basis!

    The smart people I know aren't going to rob a bank to make money even though that's where the money is. They simply work and use their wisdom to come up with useful innovations or to trade better. Why, in your opinion, if there are many of them, they will suddenly prefer the robbery method?
    A very strange and baseless claim!

    A wise man learns from what can be learned.
    From Leibovich you can learn some interesting things as well as some nonsense, but what you learn from Leibovich you don't learn from religion but from Leibovich.

    When you come across a book - whether it's a science book or a holy book of some religion - how do you learn from it?
    There are several things you do for this purpose, the most important of which is ascertaining the reliability of the book: sometimes you trust the book because you already know a thing or two about its authors and other things they wrote in the past, and in other cases you check some things that appear in it against things that you know with high certainty to be correct

    In the holy books we have no acquaintance with the writers and these books completely fail in comparing their claims with known facts.
    More than that: what is described in them as "moral" sometimes cries out to the heavens as clearly immoral.

    So how exactly can you learn from them?
    At best, you can read each sentence and think for yourself if it is true or not.

    But then, you're not actually learning from the book! You learn from yourself and use the book only as a random sentence generator!

    So it's true - even if I don't get anything from the content of a book - I can learn something from it.
    I can, for example, learn that its author was stupid, ignorant or a liar - but I guess that's not what you meant.

    What do you expect me to learn from your comments?

  30. I say that smart people is only good if it solves the problem of wars for you completely, my intention was that once the majority of people are smart, then the war on money and the economy will be strong and therefore the war this time will not be based on territories and religious principles but on money itself.

    Believe me, I'd rather have more smart people in the world without any problems caused by this, at least I won't have to look for people with whom I can have common topics of conversation...

    By the way, I think that a person who defines himself as smart should learn from everything, for example I take the beautiful things in the Jewish religion, I really think that there are many things that can be learned from them and not just slander the religion and say how ignorant it makes people.
    There are also a lot of Leibovichs who hang around there for whom the dome on their head doesn't do them that much harm.

    I'll sum it up like this: it's a disgrace that evolution is still not taught in schools as extensively as they teach the Bible or any other subject, and we can certainly stand up and fight for that.

    try to shake people from religion? Keep trying, we'll see what happens...

  31. Machel
    The truth is, now I remember it and the first response (the first link), was even intended for the commenter "Kan Ada" and it was written sarcastically (the "name/nickname" was part of the response and was written sarcastically).
    The rest of the comments I wrote, looking back, today I would have phrased them a little differently.

    Anyway, I thank you again for the lessons. And sucker - who doesn't learn from your experience and knowledge!

  32. the whisperer:
    It goes without saying that this maturation did not happen by itself and is mainly the result of the discussions here on the site.

    You are welcome to confirm or deny.

  33. the whisperer:
    Evolution has no intention.
    I don't think evolution has a way to create a population where everyone is smart because as I said - wisdom is a relative thing.
    You said that a lot of smart people is bad and I said that it is actually good.
    Now you say it's really good - so nice - we agreed.

    The prophecy regarding the wars is not acceptable to me. What is it based on?
    The wars until today have been fought on the basis of artificial differences that humans have defined among themselves.
    Religion is the main artificial difference that contributes to the matter.
    Reduce this factor and significantly reduce the number, scope and intensity of wars.
    It is true that today we are approaching another problem involving the Earth's carrying capacity, but this was not the basis for wars in the past.
    In addition to that - if we manage to remove all the artificial differences we have placed between ourselves - there is a chance that we can, together, overcome this challenge as well.
    The whole point is to understand that all humans are together at war against the forces of nature.
    It's not just that the Beatles wrote the song Imagine and it's not just that Einstein aspired to establish a world government.

    People who deal with ignorance are not wasting their time.
    Do you think the schools are also unnecessary? Where is the border?

    Without the monkey trial and the other endless debates between exemplary people and enlightened people, everyone would have believed to this day that the earth is the center of the universe (and it is not a sphere at all but a plane) and that man was created in his image.

    Maturity and general understanding are not created in most people by themselves.
    This is the result of exposure to different opinions and the reasons underlying each of them.
    Only virtuous individuals are philosophers who reach conclusions completely independently.

    You are invited to follow the growing up process of one of the commenters here who chose the nickname "Ghost".

    These are his first two responses:

    Here is a slightly later response:

    And another:

    Here's something after a while:

    And a little later:

    And a little further:

    And a little further:

    And here are more recent comments:

    And here is a response from this discussion:

  34. Reminds me of the letter that Einstein sent to Freud in which he asked him a question that apparently sounds quite shallow compared to a person like Albert Einstein.

    Einstein asked in the letter why there are wars, and whether there is a way that can solve the disease of humanity caused by war.

    Freud answered him indirectly that there was no such way, and that one could dream about it until tomorrow.

    I did not address the issue of the wars at all because it will never be solved, believe me if I had the possibility to turn all stupid people into educated people with a basic understanding of existence and even evolution I would do it, and then we would already be talking about ways to solve the use of the economy the world without creating chaos.

    But there is no chance of that, because evolution deliberately did not allow most of the world to be smart and there is a reason for that.
    All the great scientists of our day who resigned from their occupation in the study of science in order to solve the problem of stupidity and ignorance all over the world are wasting their time, with all the resentment I have for them.

    And let me tell you something, Michael, every human being has the potential to be brainwashed, including me and you, the trick is to understand on your own during the time that you are brainwashed and see how you can return to reality.

    A lot of "stupid" people nowadays have a high IQ, but what separates people today from being stupid or not is not a high IQ, but maturity and a general understanding that one needs to come to conclusions about questions like "where did we come from" or stop with superstitions that we learned from society.

    By the way, also taking control of the collective subconscious that lies in each and every one of us, within which we still carry the "sin of the first man" on our back, constitutes the separation between wisdom and stupidity.

    Once the entire population of the world succeeds in making this very, very difficult transition, maybe there will be no more wars in the world and it will be possible to move forward.

    At the moment, there is a reason that it is not like that, and there is also a reason that the minority is the one who succeeds in making the change.
    I have already said the reason in general and there is no need to elaborate.

  35. The truth is, I didn't mean to reassure, but to disqualify. The majority have always been stupid.
    Brainwashing does not encourage freedom of thought.
    And so I claim that everything should be learned and taught, just for the freedom of thought. And this is a much better situation than studying only scientific material.

  36. the whisperer:
    It doesn't look like science fiction to me. It seems like pure fiction to me.
    Once everyone is smart there will be less problems in the world.
    The State of Israel is successful because it has relatively many smart people.
    It is in the process of change and when it ends - the success of the country will also end.
    If the entire world is made up of smart people - science will advance faster and the structure of employment will change completely because man will be able to extract more resources from the world, but he does not need to eat more, and the result will be that everyone will have more freedom.
    I will not refer to all the other things because, of course, long before money, the issue of wars and wars must be examined - they are also the result of religious stupidity.
    I don't think you really find anything good in the executions and mutilations in Arab countries and I don't think you can find anything good in the ultra-Orthodox evading the burden of the economy and security.

    Besides - people are not that stupid.
    They are brainwashed.
    I have no intention of changing the genetics of the human race (it would really be science fiction if I thought of doing so).
    I just think that the ultra-orthodox (who already today know the importance of money - otherwise they wouldn't be sucking our money from us) would rather earn their money honestly from the work they do and not from the work I do.

    The truth is that as strange as it may seem - I am very afraid of the impact of the latest oil discoveries.
    These discoveries may ease the burden on the economy and it will be easier to support parasites as well.
    The result could be that they will multiply unimpeded and when the oil runs out we will all face a broken trough.

  37. point:
    it's all relative.
    If you demand that everyone be Einstein - it turns out that most are stupid.
    If the threshold requirements are lower - it turns out that the majority are smart.
    The question is what is "stupid" in the context of your question, which is the context I was referring to in my response.

    You tried to calm us down with the sentence:
    ". A wise person will find the truth from any starting point."
    Now, if this is really supposed to be reassuring, it means that most people are smart and there is no need to do anything to make it clear to them what is right and what is wrong.

    On the other hand - factually - there are many ultra-Orthodox and those who are born ultra-Orthodox remain ultra-Orthodox.

    If you connect this with your claim - it turns out that all the ultra-Orthodox are stupid, but since there is a smart majority in society (because otherwise your words would not be reassuring) it follows that the majority of the secular are actually smart.

    It doesn't add up with your last comment.

    Be that as it may, the situation is not as optimistic as you described, and a captured baby often remains captive unless someone bothers to open his eyes.

  38. to Michael -

    Precisely because I assume that you are more than 25 years older than me, and also because I was raised to respect people older than me, I will try to keep my writing below eye level. Although at the level of principle I think that with all your resume in science, messing around and trying to bring people back to contemporary reality is quite a waste of time and even harms the evolutionary order that in any case affects society in our time and in the future.

    Since the first cell evolved into billions of cells that existed for bicontinental life, a balance of an ordered food chain was created thanks to which the creatures in the world continue to exist to this very day, you don't need to be a recognized professor of evolution to know these details.

    We must understand that not only do we need a lot of stupid people in the world, we need their stupidity more than ever.
    As soon as the "phenomenon of nature" that I like to call it - the wise man, began to walk around and put into his mind that money is the motive for every little thing (and rightly so), then that food chain was completely broken, except for the fact that the species of the wise man from now on will not exist by eating plant foods like That is how it developed, and thus will also destroy a certain order of the chain, there is the second work related specifically to the index of money - which is an index that every person needs to take into account in order to exist today.

    A situation has arisen in which the food chain that begins and ends with a person has become relevant only to physical existence, and not only to the pleasures of life and self-establishment - which is what every average person on Earth, and especially in the Western world, loves and is even forced to strive for.

    It can be said that man is also the only creature that can really differentiate between existence and survival and quality of life and establishment.

    Now ask me what the hell is the deal? So I'll explain as best I can:

    People who are jealous of their religion are not lacking in the world, they are even the majority, why is this good?
    Because when money is a factor for survival then the game starts to change.
    Imagine a situation where everyone is enlightened, everyone uses their IQ without the grip of a god who sits with a lollipop in his right hand and a menacing whip in his left. What would happen then?

    The moment you remove religion or other affiliation from belief in a personal God you basically cause such great chaos that humanity will never see.
    All people will suddenly become aware that money is a dynamic thing and can be exploited, and thus the competition on the market will be so great that the consequences will not only be in the stock market and in regards to world trade, the results will be devastating due to the economic situation that will only continue to deteriorate.

    Even if the return of those religious fanatics to the life of enlightenment will be in the process of 100 years, the situation will not be better, and if you ask me, it seems to me that for you it could also be tomorrow.

    Does it look like "science fiction" to you? Absolutely not, do the thinking alone.
    Because of the stupid people who do not have the ability to control the money that, as they say, drives the modern world from continuing to exist, the same chaos did not arise.
    As soon as there is a load of people who are smart enough, the competition will also increase, the world is barely able to cope now
    With the economy, what will happen when billionaires suddenly become enlightened and aware of their surroundings?
    I guess evolution made sure that there would be enough smart people to "neutralize" the belief gene that parallels most people and prevents them from being "smart", thus making the world continue to exist.
    Of course I took the food chain as a metaphor for the global economy, but as we progress we also begin to understand that maybe it's not just a metaphor.
    Because money and food today are the same thing.

    You will call it a theory, people who think like me will call it an axiom - and perhaps because of this situation I do not believe in randomness as an option.

    The religion was, the religion exists, and the religion will be in a million years and it doesn't matter at all whether the ideology behind it will be Christian missionary or any other New Age approach.

    Therefore there is no need at all to try and "fix" the world as you, my father, and everyone else would like it to happen.

    Remember: the return of people with a sufficiently high IQ from religious fanaticism and belief in myths to a basic understanding of evolution and back to a secular life = people with doubts.

    People with doubts = people who know they can manage on their own and use their intelligence for good.

    People who know they can use their intelligence for good = chaos the likes of which has never been seen, and will never be seen.

    I will finish with the belief in the existence of a supreme being:

    We can argue here until tomorrow about this, for every philosopher who does not deal with this question I can give you 2 more who do and vice versa.

    My logic is very different from yours, it says that the more the awareness of mathematics as a tool develops and the research conditions improve, including discoveries made about dark matter, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc... the more stupid or enlightened people there will be who will continue to ask the question about the existence of God, and on my part You can
    To call the same god blessed...

    So do I personally, and so do many, many people smarter than me and you continue to wonder if that entity or any other concept is possible. Even though you think it's nothing more than a waste of time.
    And you know, maybe she doesn't even play dice.

  39. Michael, yes, I claim that most ultra-Orthodox are stupid, as well as most secular people are stupid.

  40. Year:
    The response numbers have not been canceled - this is simply a glitch.
    Not only does this make it difficult to formulate new responses, but it makes old responses (which refer to numbers) unintelligible.
    I reported this to my father yesterday evening and I hope the matter is taken care of.
    There are a few more glitches that need to be fixed in this release and I've reported all the ones I've seen.
    If you (or anyone else) notices something broken - please report it to Abbi.

  41. the whisperer:
    The world does not need fools - that is - it does not need their stupidity.
    We are also not talking about fools here, but people who are burned out and who certainly do not need ignorance.
    The argument with the idiots is not intended to convince only them but also many people who do not intervene in the discussion and sit on the fence because the education system did not care to teach them the facts of life.
    The change may not apply in a moment, but if we don't fight for it, it won't apply at all.
    The country is being conquered by the forces of the Berats and there is no one standing in the way.
    If everyone takes your advice - the country will fall.
    This is also true on a global level and it is a fact that distinguished people such as Dawkins, Dent, Sam Harris and Steven Weiberg have abandoned their occupations to devote time to addressing the problem.
    I have no doubt that preoccupation with the question of whether or not there is a flying spaghetti monster will get us nowhere.
    I have no doubt about it even if you've heard it a thousand times.
    This is the first time I hear that a truth that is repeated many times becomes a lie. Usually they say the opposite.
    I have thought not a little but a lot about the question of whether there is room for discussing spaghetti monsters of all kinds and my unequivocal conclusion is that there is not.
    When someone has nothing to say about a certain subject - there is no reason to talk about it and the only thing people know to say about spaghetti monsters they want to believe in is that it is impossible to prove they don't exist.
    So okay - you can't prove it. After all, it is impossible to prove anything about reality - this is not only a feature of the flying spaghetti monster, but of every claim - and especially of claims that even the words that appear in them are not defined.

    You suggest that I think deeply and see that I reach a different conclusion and my answer to that is, therefore, that I thought and thought deeply and this is my conclusion as a result of this thinking.
    I also draw further confidence in my path from the fact that almost all scientists in the world have decided in a similar way and are not dealing with the question.
    Do you think everyone is wrong or just me?

  42. It's a shame that you canceled the numbering of comments, which makes it impossible to specify early comments that you want to answer

  43. Michael Rothschild:

    First, I apologize if my words were offensive (or it's just my nick nims).

    In any case, is the question about whether there is a higher power or not irrelevant? Depends on who is asking.

    I have spent many years of my life on the "Hidan" site, something that always repeats itself is the debates which, in my opinion, lead to a kind of unnecessary water-milling that actually could have produced much more from it than it appears on the surface.

    It seems as if you are really excited by all those brainwashed people who came back from the "Deuteronomy" lecture and are directly quoting the texts they heard in the last lecture on Thursday.

    I will give you an example: My father claims that we must not stop and give up on ourselves until we convince the creationists that they are talking nonsense, we must do everything to prevent a "return" to the Middle Ages and try to cause as little as possible for the foolish people who hold the faith to destroy the balance of modern humanity which is only progressing for the better.

    Precisely from a human being like my father, I would have expected to discover a little more understanding that evolution does not allow social balance, and just as there is evolution for the living organism, so it also takes place in society itself, whether you like it or not.

    Making all believers become "enlightened" in one day is not even within the scope of the theory.
    The world needs the stupid people to survive more than it needs the wise people, so there is no need at all to try to lead them to the life of enlightenment and understanding of the modern world.

    And again, how I love to hear the metaphors of spaghetti monsters and God that have long ceased to work for me.

    What is my claim? You have to open your mind, the fact that you have a wonderful ability to express yourself and certainly a fairly high IQ is already an achievement.

    But if you think a little with yourself you will be able to understand that your hold on evolution and absolute opposition, or rather evasion of the question of whether "God" exists or not, is fundamentally wrong.

  44. And of course, hello, that I am allegedly dismissing things for unscientific reasons after I referred you to, among other thingsThis article What I wrote is to lie once again.

  45. Peace:
    And they also say that the studies you mention are nonsense.
    I invited you to read an entire book on the subject but you prefer, for unscientific reasons, to simply ignore everything that contradicts your words

  46. Peace:
    There are even things that are clearer earlier in the conversation.
    For example, at minute 2:04, an explicit conversation begins about the identity between the body and the mind.
    As part of it, at minute 2:27, Professor Sompolinsky answers the question of whether the body and the soul are one and the same, and his words are as follows:
    "so that's it. This is exactly the meaning of this finding we talked about and other findings from recent years: absolute monism! There is no "I am supreme". As brain research progresses, the unequivocal conclusion becomes clear that our highest cognitive actions: choice, decision, moral preferences, evaluation of possible scenarios, etc., are all the product of physical and chemical mechanisms in our minds, which themselves are driven by physical and chemical laws that are the same as the law that exists in our other body cells or even in non-living systems!”

  47. But when did I talk about the traditional concept in general that God intervenes in the affairs of nature?
    Or is man a small god who changes history through the mind?

    All I said and supported by the observations is:
    We are not the body.

    And as soon as the observations show that it is real - it is already part of nature.
    Just as alternative medicine becomes conventional as soon as it is tested with scientific tools.

    Your objection is not scientific but sociological - fear of the established religion.

    But you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    This is exactly why the science establishment needs to take the observed truths and turn the established religions into empty vessels that do not know the difference between truth and fiction.
    and be back in the center of things.

    My anger at you is your dismissal of the real objective experiences of thousands of people of completely different backgrounds
    Just like the church did at the time with science.

    And the various studies, done by experts - if it was revealed that it was nonsense, they would say it was nonsense.
    It is not creationists trying to prove the Torah.

    Science is not meant to be a political tool.

  48. Peace:
    The introduction to Beyond Lies describes your words well.
    I invite all readers to watch the part of the conversation with Sompolinski starting at minute 5:44
    It is especially worth listening to his answers.
    For example, at minute 6:15 he says "So I say first of all what my religious belief does not include. It does not include two of the traditional basic concepts of religious belief:
    A. God as a supernatural agent who intervenes in the course of affairs in nature and changes its course - the traditional concept of private providence.
    And the second traditional view is that man is a little god who, in his decisions and in his freedom, changes the course of events in history.
    And these two basic traditional concepts are deprived of a foundation! And a man of science and a man of thought who thinks about things and sees how science deciphers those so-called mysterious things of the self and of free will cannot combine, reconcile traditional religious belief of this kind with his scientific worldview."

    Did you really hope to blind the readers so they wouldn't realize that Sompolinski was saying this?

    Scientists in general reject the conclusions of the Lancet study outright.
    I assume that it is clear to you that Professor Haim Sompolinski is also familiar with the "research" published in the Lancet, only that he also knows the facts and therefore reaches conclusions opposite to yours.

  49. Well, when there is nothing to say, we turn to demagoguery and lies.

    Dr. Sompolinski talks about how it is possible to create subjective feelings through manipulation of the brain.

    Did I say no for a moment? What's the connection anyway?

    I am talking about experiences when the brain does not function at all (Van Lummel and Pam Reynolds research as examples) and about people born blind who do not see through the body (as a result of leaving the body), and about memories of soul reincarnations (Stevenson's and Dr. Wambach's research for example)
    Wambach who set out to investigate the "phenomenon" in order to put an end to this nonsense
    At the end of her research, she issued a statement:
    'I don't believe in reincarnation — I know it!'

    What can be taught?

    The studies I talked about and linked already at the beginning of the page

    the observations that were repeated upon exiting the body

    Testimonies of atheist scientists who themselves experienced the phenomenon at the time of death

    And there is a long list here

    I'm not trying to convince you.
    But most of the public is not at all familiar with these studies and these evidences
    And you try to prevent it from them.

  50. for example:
    The common ancestor split into Y and Z with Y being the human ancestor
    Z split into chimpanzees and W) W is the ancestor of the Hornauntang gorillas)
    Many mutations occurred in the W branch - more than in the human and chimpanzee branches.

    Did you really have a hard time thinking about it?

  51. תיקון
    Y split into gorillas and orangutans Z split into chimpanzees and Homo erectus.

  52. I did not invent anything that the professor did not say in this lecture.
    The closeness stems in part from the genetic similarity.
    I just don't understand how it can work out.

    Suppose there was an ancestor X that split into Y and Z.
    Y split into gorillas and orangutans and X split into chimpanzees and Homo erectus.
    But a contradiction because chimpanzees are related to gorillas.

    Okay, so let's say there was an X ancestor that split into homo erectus and Y.
    Y later split into chimpanzees and Z which split into gorillas and orangutans.
    Again, a contradiction because we are close to chimpanzees who are in a different branch altogether.

    Sorry for the ignorance but I don't see any way to fix this.

  53. Peace:
    And if you didn't understand: there is no content for the lesson because there are no such proofs.
    In fact, all the information we have supports the opposite claim.
    How about instead of teaching the empty lesson you suggested they teach a lesson about what is known on the subject (and then, of course, everyone will realize that your claim is baseless)?
    And for some reason you didn't say what you think about Sompolinski and his words.
    Do you really think you understand more than he does?

  54. Peace:
    Here is the entire content of the lesson on proofs that the soul is separate from the body:

  55. The skeptic:
    So you heard about an event with chimpanzees.
    Come and see an event with a dog.

    Proximity to humans is determined by genetic similarity.
    After all, this is also the basis for what you decided was a "refutation"!
    That is: you know it but you choose not to use it when you are not comfortable and to invent some kind of index that cannot be measured at all and for which serious tests have certainly not been conducted.


    He talks about a chimpanzee that had a heart attack and humans evacuated it and all the other chimpanzees stood by the fence and looked worried, something that doesn't exist in other monkeys.

    "Only that it is possible that the split of the human ancestors from the other primates happened before the split of the chimpanzees and gorillas"
    So why are chimpanzees considered the closest to us?

  57. Lol.

    I have an improvement suggestion for my father. Go ahead, don't bother writing articles. Once a week you will automatically open a new article under the title "Evolution vs. Creation." GO!” Without a word. It's just an excuse anyway 🙂

  58. Tomer, you are probably not on the right site.

    New Agers? Pseudo science?
    Go through the list of the honorable editors (you will also find them on Wikipedia)

    Saying again what I wrote in my first response:
    The scientific evidence for evolution + the scientific evidence that we are not just the body must be taught.

    Anyone who claims otherwise - has an agenda and/or falls into the trap of mental fixation and becomes irrelevant.

    Useful in the word irrelevant does not come here as an insult -
    There is a reason why the public is moving away from science - mainstream science clings to a fix that stands against it
    The observations and against what many of the public experienced themselves.
    The youth run to the lap of drugs because ignoring this aspect in the education system - creates a conflict with reality.

    If "institutional" science wants to return to playing an integral role in public life, it must be seen as a reason
    The distance is in itself.

    The USSR was a country of secularism and science only - as soon as it fell apart there was a huge return to the fold of religion
    (which involves folklore, nonsense and lies with truths demonstrated as scientific) - you will not "solve" the problem by channeling the information in a direction that fits your line of thought (and not observations).
    And you will not stop the established religion from taking the public - as long as you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The entrenchment of the establishment in Migdal HaShen (which is disconnected from the findings) - its result is visible on the surface
    As the example of the information in the current article at the tip of the fork.

    As I told my father, the way creationists deny evolution is similar to the way the establishment tries to deny it
    The findings of "We are not just the body" - how can you come up with claims for creationists when you practice exactly the same way?

    This thread will of course not cause the parties to "lay down their weapons".
    But worthy of thought.

  59. The skeptic:
    What is this strange index "from an emotional point of view (relation to the death of relatives)" and on what do you base your claim on the matter?
    Did you measure how emotional a chimpanzee felt when a loved one died?
    Have you never seen elephants mourn their dead?

    Besides - no one claimed here that the chimpanzees are not the closest to us among the existing species, but only that it is possible that the splitting of the human ancestors from the other primates happened before the splitting of the chimpanzees and the gorillas.

    There is no contradiction here.

  60. The fool for the whisperers:
    The question of whether or not there is some supreme being is not the question here.
    The religious oppose evolution because it contradicts their nonsense.
    The evidence against the nonsense is too much and that's why they sometimes try to get caught up in some supreme being that does nothing - even though it's not the being they believe in at all - just to confuse people like you who will think that this is the debate between religion and science.
    Science does not deal with unscientific claims - that is - those that have no effect on reality.
    These are meaningless claims for us as humans (and since the only meaning we are able to give to things is the meaning they have for us - we can say that the question of whether or not there is such a kind of entity is simply a meaningless question - a question that even a sane philosopher should not engage in).
    What can be said about such a kind of being?
    It does not affect us whether it exists or not. Just like the flying spaghetti monster or Dumbledore.
    These tautologies do not need to be learned and taught. It's just a waste of time.

    No one here has ruled out the option of a meaningless supreme being and all your arrogant moral preaching is only relevant to that no one.

  61. I'm afraid that atheism is creating a new religion for itself, and it's a good thing, because a person in our time (or at least as he stands from an evolutionary point of view now) must hold onto a certain belief in order to survive.

    The atheists, or rather the people who comment here on the site, including my own father who brought us a great site to look at, convince themselves through the collective / non-collective subconscious that there is indeed no supreme being that is responsible for the entire logical order of the universe, thus removing themselves in advance from the penalty of battle And came the end of their lives.

    Creationists cling to links and quotes from rabbis who have long despised the Jewish religion and tradition in order to convince themselves that they will move on "in the next world" to a better place.

    I'm not exactly neutral, you can't deny evolution, but you also can't prove or claim that there isn't a supreme being.

    Should evolution be taught in school? Of course it should, because evolution happened.
    Should schools teach lessons about philosophy and the possibility that there is indeed a "supernatural" entity to reality? Certainly, one should not be ignorant on both sides.

    None of you, including my father, can rule out the option of "God" or any other entity.
    I justify my father, we should not remain indifferent to people who are so led as sheep for religious brainwashing today.
    But even those who support my father 100 percent should show a little more knowledge beyond the theory of evolution and rely on science which helps us a lot in our day to day life, but has nothing to do with any other belief and the question: "Why"?

  62. A more ancient ancestor? What kind of explanation is this?
    The chimpanzees should be close to us because emotionally (attitude to the death of relatives) we are similar.
    But it turns out that they are actually close to gorillas and orangutans because they have this thing and we don't.

    I don't see any way this can be fixed. Every way I tried to think of it leads to a contradiction.

  63. For all lovers of pseudo-science, conspiracy theories and New Age, the site of science is a scientific site,
    There are enough pseudo-scientific websites on the web that claim to be scientific.
    There you can spread your gospels based on snippets of "scientific" theories on a dime and sail far beyond imagination with all your fantasies when the scientific basis remains a vague association at best.
    It could certainly be very interesting... but based on complete bullshit.
    But why is it so important for you to do it here? And to convince to insert questionable content at best..
    Kudos to Avi Blizovsky, who does an excellent job of introducing relevant content and maintains the website's credibility.

  64. Allow me to join the discussion and express my opinion on the matter.
    I do not believe in God and religion is thousands of light years away from me.
    As argued here, it is clearly illogical to believe in the Bible and God and at the same time follow the path of science.
    After all, the Bible is full of stories that lack any logical basis, starting with the story of creation through the story of the splitting of the Red Sea and all the "miracles" that God performed for the benefit of the Israelites.
    Any belief in these stories simply completely negates the laws of science that apply to our world.
    With this argument, it makes sense perhaps that stories told in the Bible that do not involve God or any supernatural phenomena did happen and were recorded in the book.

  65. With the advance of Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and other beliefs, we will enter another era of obscurantism; maybe a new middle age; shame
    Google translation from Spanish with linguistic improvements:

    With the advancement of Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and other faiths, we are entering another age of awakening, perhaps the new Middle Ages, it hurts

  66. my father
    The reduction of the US investment in space does not stem from stupidity, it stems from a deficit of

    54,939,786,900,000 dollars

    That is over $176 in debt for every American citizen

    And only the annual interest on the debt is

    3,627,875,600,000 dollars

    When approximately 45 million out of 310 million citizens use food stamps from the government.
    And almost 25 million are unemployed

    When you go to conquer Iraq, Afghanistan and conduct wars in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia
    Due to lies and imperialism you cannot conquer Mars either

  67. To the question of whether the religious nationals believe in evolution.

    Unfortunately, there are some of them who do not believe in evolution but in creationism, sitting with me in the laboratory where I work is a doctor of organic chemistry who is nationally religious and lives in Elad, from a conversation with me it emerged that she does not believe in evolution but in the story written in the Bible one by one.
    Of course there are religious nationalists who think differently but there are also secularists who believe in creationism.

  68. point:
    It's bullshit!
    Do you want to claim that all ultra-Orthodox are stupid?
    And what about all the Palestinians?

    A child who has been brainwashed - his chances of finding the truth as an adult are extremely low.

  69. What is all the fuss about? He who is a fool will remain a fool. Brainwashing does not help. A wise man will find the truth from any starting point.

    Therefore: everything must be taught in schools, evolution, creationism, Christianity, Hinduism, numerology, astrology, alchemy, the stories of the Brothers Grimm, etc., etc.

    What does it matter what you study in school?

  70. Just an answer to just a question:
    I studied a lot of philosophy and logic (which is part of mathematics which is my area of ​​specialization) I understand very well.
    As I said: if you don't understand the question, you don't pass the threshold test of justifying the discussion with you.
    Even if you didn't understand any of the languages ​​I speak, I wouldn't argue with you.
    There are simply minimal threshold requirements of knowledge and intelligence that I do not argue with those who do not meet them.

  71. I'm not evasive, I don't understand the're just arguing right now..just a question, did you study philosophy in your life?

  72. Evyatar:
    The question is completely clear and if you don't understand it, you don't pass the threshold test that I expect people I debate with to pass.

    Good night.

  73. By the way - your wonderful logic continues to be spectacular!
    In response 76 you write "You are fighting an enemy that does not exist Judaism that you invented" and in response 79 you say that the questions you said do not exist are in the ultra-Orthodox stream.
    Now tell me, do the people in the ultra-orthodox stream not exist?

    It's just interesting, although your evasion of answering 75 shows that you are not fundamentally different from those non-existent people.

  74. I heard his words and they were confused... I don't understand the question, maybe if you clarify it

  75. Too many people have heard his words and to claim they were false is pathetic.
    But why do you keep avoiding?
    Answer 75!

  76. Why not? What about god playing dice? As a person who knows Gabi Avital personally, I can say that his statements were false.. and these rabbis who belong to the ultra-orthodox stream are not the ones with the answers. Try talking to the national religious stream..

  77. Evyatar:
    You're just rambling!
    There are so many comments on this site from religious people who dismiss science and you say that it simply does not exist.
    Does Avital not exist?
    Does Amnon Yitzhak not exist?
    Does Zamir Cohen not exist?
    I know that every religious person I argue with will try to avoid answering the questions. It's really common to you and all religious people, but that's not what I was talking about.
    In response 63 you write "Then contradict my definition, not the definitions of foreign people"
    This is a reference to your own private religion and not to the religion of foreign people and I can't find any book about this private religion of yours.
    But why are you avoiding?
    Reply to comment 75!

  78. Logic or madness, what does it matter, the main thing is that the Temple Mount is in our hands...?@!??!#(:

  79. This is the Jewish religion, not that I invented it, this is what you will hear if you go to all the national religious yeshiva, this is what will happen if you talk to doctors like Michael Avraham, Michael Rotenberg, etc.. This is what will happen if you talk to the leading rabbis, Rabbi Aviner, Rabbi Sharki, Rabbi Fairman, Rabbi Tamir... it is not religion that I invented but you are fighting an enemy that does not exist Judaism that you invented

  80. Evyatar:
    Regarding 73 - of the two options - what is written in the Torah is true and what is written in the Torah is not true - which third option do you believe in?
    The same goes for the sayings of the Sages.

    Interesting - this logic of yours!

  81. Evyatar:
    Regarding response 71 - you are really cheeky.
    Did you really expect me to try to learn the private religion you invented?
    I have enough to do in life!

  82. Evyatar:
    You have two options:
    Either believe that what is written in the Torah is true - or believe that it is not.

    If you believe that what is written in the Torah is not true and what is true is what the Sages said - then I have also brought you examples of the wonderful wisdom of those
    Want more?
    The trachea of ​​the cow is divided into three parts, one of which reaches the liver.

  83. In short, after all the scientific come and basically claim (but in really nice language) that I'm an idiot, the place for logical arguments and listening is gone..even though you had the opportunity of your life to return an ignorant religious "in teshuva" you decided to give up due to things you are not able to's a shame That a site that respects scientific thinking and global thinking is not able to talk to a person at eye level..

  84. Avitar Isaacs:
    I don't know what your definition is and I really don't care what things from the Torah you choose to believe and what you want to think that God was trying to work on you when he wrote it.
    If there is something you really don't understand (that's what you wrote) then think a little more and maybe you will understand.

  85. The last shuttle was launched.. I hope we didn't give up.. The earth is burning for us for the religious (:

  86. Peace:
    I searched more time back and actually found a response.
    Now I let her go.
    I do not find in the article any reference even to what I said here (which is only the tip of the iceberg of the reservations from the study).

  87. Here it is again:

    Not only is there "no evidence", there is also "some evidence" that we are not the physical body -
    There is a great deal of evidence as I linked earlier.

    But sometimes you have to read about a very extreme case to wake up - the Pam Reynolds case.

    She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life

    She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest.

    This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who performed it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced an NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate.
    her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead

  88. If you divide between the written Torah and those who have been given the authority by the Torah to interpret it, you will come to distorted conclusions... You cannot take part of a belief system and make a certain claim... Besides, have they ever thought of living beings in this way in the history of science? Can a man who has dedicated his life to discovering the truth really believe that this is how animals are created? So can it be just for a moment that things are not as they should be? But tell me once again that I'm distorting things and these are just excuses...besides the fact that specifically your source in tractate Avot does not exist, I know all the other sources...I did read all the articles on the Da'at Emet site and once again they come from the same concept, the interpretation of the article is not according to the simple, it is not acceptable With them as an excuse, even though in all generations they announced that things are not as they should be

  89. The idea of ​​a flood in only a certain area is just ridiculous.
    How did the water cover the mountains and not spill into other areas?
    It takes a fair amount of stupidity to believe that.
    Besides - this is not what is written in the Torah. It's just another twist of many kinds to keep believing in grandma's stories.

    Cain married a woman who was neither born nor created.

    Want more?
    Go to the Daat Emet site.
    By the way - if you have already left the Torah and you rely on the words of the sages, then you should know that the sages believed in evolution and biogenesis. Although in really far-fetched and ridiculous versions of them, it's worth getting to know the entertainment, if only for yourself.

    They believed that lice were created from human sweat and mice from mold

    Erod can be created as a result of pairing a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Huna Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out of them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.
    is funny?
    That's not all, of course:
    In tractate Avot, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX, it is written: "The tiger is bold-faced because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of the lioness. Because during the heat of the lions, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face."
    And how about that?
    And in order not to detract from the Jerusalem Talmud, I will also quote from his words:
    In the Jerusalem Talmud it is known to say that: once every seven years God changes his world, the louse after seven years turns into a scorpion, a male hyena turns into a female and a mountain mouse turns into a wild boar (Shabbat chapter XNUMX page XNUMX column XNUMX / XNUMX)
    In conclusion - Talmudic thinking would have been very good for stand-up comedy if it hadn't been so funny that the stand-up artist himself would have laid down laughing.

  90. I was favorably impressed by Dr. Zeev's words. Even though I don't agree with some of his words, what is revealed here is a person who remains loyal to rational thinking, self-criticism and lack of bias of mental fixations. The problem is with those who first "know" the truth (it's God who created no it's not that...etc) and only then seek to justify their claims that they have never established for themselves to a minimal degree. That is why the discussion on these issues is so problematic.

    And among us, the people of science, such a person who says: "If there is one thing that I can declare that I believe in with every fiber of my soul, then it is the enormous power of human logic and scientific practice which guarantees that in the end every truth will come to light sooner or later." Belongs to our camp. Let irrational people chat, attempts to talk with them are predestined for failure and only a headache comes out of them. But we should not take a clear direction because of them and follow it with all our might just because they are in the opposite direction (that is, we should not try to convince the unconvinced - all mystics of all kinds - and along the way get so caught up in our direction to the point of ignoring interesting findings because then we become similar to them. It is easy to cross the border into various dogmatic places without realizing it). What is important is maintaining the logical - rational - and hence scientific way of thinking.

  91. So contradict my definition, not the definitions of foreign people..and the philosophy of science talks so much about the limitations of science..besides that I do not deny evolution..there are many facts in evolution and the question is in their interpretation...those who think that evolution=no God calls reality in an interpretive way that I am unable to understand

  92. Check - I wrote your explicit name earlier
    And it was blocked.
    One response before my response #45 (that's why I wrote a continuation)

    In the last article he explains in detail why it is possible to medically determine that there was no brain activity.
    And why does the research actually also deny that the HND phenomenon is not psychological or physical

  93. Religious beliefs have many definitions - otherwise there would be one religion. Science, on the other hand, has only one, although this does not prevent evolution deniers from choosing their own definition of evolution to make it easier to attack.

  94. So for Michael, if you read the Jewish sources that talk about a flood, you will see that they are talking about a flood in a very specific area of ​​Mesopotamia and the Land of Israel and nothing more than that. It is true that when you read the Bible it does not look like that, but if you look at slightly later sources, you will see it there

  95. Can I have more examples? And my father, evolution does not contradict any religious belief.. it is illogical to define what the true belief is and then attack it.. while I believe in a logical, logical belief and in my proven opinion that thinks otherwise... if it pleases you, we will not call it Judaism, we will call it Isaacism, it doesn't really matter

  96. By the way - the question with the kangaroo can be expanded and asked how it is that in view of the story of Noah's Ark there are land animals on more than one continent.

  97. Evyatar. The answer is yes. Go to Mea Shearim and there they will tell you that they believe exactly what Michael described. Unfortunately, evolution is against the faith of the real religious and not of the virtual ones you claim to represent.

  98. Evyatar:
    The fact that I gave you two examples of grandmother's stories does not mean that there are not many of them.
    I know that today - in view of the flood of scientific information - most Jews no longer believe that what is written in the Torah about the creation story is true.
    The only question is - why do they even believe in anything from the Torah.

  99. Peace:
    None of your comments are blocked so there is nothing to release.
    In the article you brought there is no answer to the claims I made. Why did you think there was?

  100. Do the proofs revolve around inaccuracies (seemingly) in two stories in the Bible? It sounds especially absurd that there are many answers (answers not excuses) and does the believing Jew really believe that God created the world in six days? It seems that the absolute majority of religious people will tell you no..even if you do you have no way to contradict it because those who claim that the world was created in six days claim that it was created the age of billions of years...this may sound like an unreasonable claim to you but you have no way to contradict it but If I'm wrong.. then if you can define you are a God that you don't believe in it will help me understand...

  101. Machal, I was indeed wrong in my interpretation regarding the case of the heart attacks.
    (However, not in the case of Pam Reynolds - please release the comment for me)

    Read Van Lummel's response to similar claims by Michael Shermer
    We must remember that Van Lommel was skeptical of the cause before he began the study

  102. By the way, hello:
    If you avoided lying, you would correctly quote the words of the researchers behind the article and not make up your own stories just to mislead the public.
    Here is a quote from the article itself:

    All patients were clinically dead, which we established mainly by electrocardiogram records

    No EEG and no plaster!
    They just don't know what clinical death is!

  103. Peace:
    Kevin Nelson ignores nothing.
    When trying to resuscitate a person - they do not connect him to an EEG.
    In general, there is also no way to know at what time during the period when the person was not spoken to, he had the experience he is talking about.

  104. Avitar Isaacs:
    As I said to Amadeus - evolution does not disprove the existence of God as long as you do not specify what kind of God you mean.
    After all, if someone tells me that God is a shoe box - I will not deny the existence of such a God either.
    But as soon as you start talking about God who created the world in six days and created all the existing animal species - you start talking nonsense that has been disproved by science.
    Of course, even when talking about a rabbit that God created and then said that it gives birth even though it doesn't, or when talking about the Euphrates and the Tigris, it is enough to look at the map and see that their sources are hundreds of kilometers apart and claim that the God who created the world said that they come from a common source - we are talking about a God that cannot exist.
    In fact - there really is no end to the contradictions between reality and grandmother's stories of the Torah.
    A commenter recently raised the following question here:
    If Noah built an ark and put all kinds of animals in it so that the different species would survive the flood, then how is it that there are kangaroos only in Australia?

  105. Roni
    Sorry for the misunderstanding. In any case, this is not a scientific article. Zeev Friedman's article does not meet any scientific criteria and no scientific magazine would publish it. No wonder he was published on a news site with a certain orientation.

    And another small difference - it's not that the two sides throw out names of scientists, but that the side of evolution flaunts scientists because it's science, the other side flaunts people from the fields of humanities, engineering, or scientific fields that are not relevant to the field in which they express themselves. Even in these articles, they do not put forward a scientific thesis but Only complain that evolution is impossible, given their particular definition of evolution.

  106. Regarding the Lancet study
    Kevin Nelson ignores facts known to all:
    The I.G. of the subjects was flat and only the resuscitation work takes a few minutes
    You are invited to read the words of the researcher himself, Dr. Pim Van Lummel from 2010

    The whole discussion here on the site started with how the creationists refuse to accept scientific information (evolution)
    No one can force anyone else - it seems.
    All that's left is to call them derogatory names.

    The information I brought can be ignored and evaded, just as the creationists do in the matter of evolution.
    But the scientific way is to accept all the findings no matter where they lead

  107. Roni:
    Indeed - the link to the website where Erdogan says he will normalize relations only after an apology is very relevant!

    After an exhausting and condescending introduction you say:
    "We must understand that even before entering into debates about Darwinism, the appearance of the first cell on earth must be explained."

    It's just not true.
    These are two separate questions.
    Evolution, beyond the fact that it can be mathematically proven that it must exist, has entire mountains of confirmations and every competing theory - including the religious one - has many refutations.
    An example of an amazing confirmation of evolution can be found here:

    Regarding the formation of the first living cell there is less information and currently there is no dominant theory.
    Some of the speculations on the subject can be seen here:
    And here:
    And here:
    And here:
    And here:,7340,L-3675264,00.html

    In general, in science, there is no such thing as having to solve one question before solving another.
    Evolution alone - even without an answer to biogenesis - overthrows the creation story of the Torah and it really amazes me that those who try to defend the Torah find themselves supported by the broken reed of the God of gaps in biogenesis.
    We don't know how it happened, so an intelligent creator did it - or as Kamila joked about it several times: "Why? digestion!"

    In your words about the development of the eye, you demonstrate abysmal ignorance, and therefore - after I answer you on this point, I will stop reading your Megillah.
    Just read here:
    And here:
    Some of the responses to the above are here:
    And here:

  108. Michael

    Not only is there "no evidence", there is also "little evidence" - there is a great deal of evidence as I linked earlier.

    But sometimes you have to read about a very extreme case to wake up - the Pam Reynolds case.

    She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life

    She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest.

    This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who performed it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced an NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate.
    her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead

  109. Small correction, I'm not a wolf. I had the privilege of studying with Dr. Zeev Friedman in the past. The above article was previously written as a response to the case of the dismissal of the chief scientist of the Ministry of Chanuch and was published on the kr8 website

  110. It's a funny opinion to see here a tussle between followers of two well-known churches: the "new atheists" who are in favor of evolution and the "evolution deniers" who are against evolution and everyone throws out names of scientists who support or oppose evolution and no one bothers to provide facts for or against it.

    You are all so pathetic…

  111. Thank you Zeev for sharing your personal feelings about evolution with us, however thank you for being in the minority. I still haven't been able to understand what Prof. Zand has to do with this matter.

    As a matter of fact, there is massive work in the field of abiogenesis, and there is progress in research in Israel as well. Do the math on your own, how many seconds are there in a million years, and how many square meters of space are there on Earth - even if we take shallow sea areas into account, on the other hand, it is enough that once in billions or trillions of attempts, one primitive molecule was able to form and was able to replicate itself on The account of the food that was abundant in the environment and given an atmosphere that did not interfere (oxygen, as strange as it sounds is a product of life and is toxic to the formation of life), so the chance is not as zero as you describe it.

    In general, I have one question about creationists, why they do not propose another scientific mechanism for the formation of life and only engage in speculations about the low chance of abiogenesis or even evolution itself after it has begun. It is a fact that we are here, and therefore the chance for biogenesis and evolution is 1.
    As for the falsification of findings, you can say this about one, two, 100 findings, but not about millions, it is already a deliberate falsification of many people over a long period of time and all over the world.

    As for mutations. First there are neutral mutations that have no selective value, and whose selective value can be expressed after many generations in completely different situations.
    And besides, mutations are not the first factor in directing the genetics of the offspring, there are also things that are easier to achieve and more common and less dangerous that change the picture, for example genetic drift. Evolution is the change in the distribution of a gene in the population over time.

  112. I, as a religious scientist who reads the articles here, am trying to understand, and if someone can answer me in detail, I would appreciate it. What is the connection between evolution and the non-existence of the divine? And what evidence is there for the contradiction of Judaism that I don't know? I will be happy to hear..

  113. I really hope that scientific honesty and the search for the truth will overcome the inclinations of an editor and the comment above will not be deleted

  114. The theory of evolution - Dr. Zeev Friedman
    "Also, the story is known about Newton's atheist friend who entered his room and saw the model he made in order to teach the solar system and they asked: Sir Isaac, who made this model? Sir Isaac answered him with demonstrable nonchalance: What do you mean, it will happen by itself..."
    With your permission, I will refer to the words of Prof. Ariel Cohen regarding the theory of evolution. Prof. Cohen suggests that the department disavow the words of Dr. Gabi Avital regarding his heresy in the truth of the theory of evolution, otherwise the department's standing in the eyes of the public will deteriorate. I would like to present evidence which, in my opinion, removes the ground from under the theory of evolution, but before that I would like to make a flat request to those who do not agree with me in advance to at least do an intellectual exercise, to put aside their personal opinion for a moment and listen seriously to my words, and if they have answers to my questions, please send me the their responses.
    I will also go ahead and say that to demand the disavowal of a certain man's media because this media is seen as possessed by Omeria is an unscientific approach, to put it mildly. Imagine where biology would be today if Louis Pasteur, remembered well, had refrained from publishing his views and experiments against spontaneous creation simply because so many in the scientific community at that time, led by Pouchet, opposed him. By the way, most of Pasteur's opponents were motivated by atheistic and anti-religious motives, because belief in spontaneous creation freed them from the need to accept a creator, and one of his opponents, the anti-clerical Edmund About, wrote in this language:
    "Mr. Pasteur preached in the Sorbonne amid a concert of applause that pleased the angels. If a small creature no bigger than the tenth of a pinhead could be born spontaneously, than there is no reason why nature should have been unable at other times and in different circumstances to form out of its own strength whales elephants lions and even humans".
    You can read about it in the book that appears online (search for Louis Pasteur google books).
    If Pasteur had avoided entering the thick of the beam, biology would have had to wait perhaps another 50 years until the discovery of spores and the development of microbiology.
    Despite the defeat suffered by the theory of spontaneous creation in the days of Pasteur, it came back and raised its head in a new guise. We must understand that even before entering into arguments about Darwinism, the appearance of the first cell on earth must be explained. The jump from the primordial soup state to the appearance of the first cell cannot be explained in terms of mutation and natural selection. These come into play only after even the most primitive organism already exists.
    In order not to appear rude in light of Pasteur's findings, the evolutionists claim that although during the short time when Pasteur's experiments (as well as Spalanzani and Francesco Redi and others) were carried out, microorganisms did not appear spontaneously, but over millions of years in the primordial soup, cells could form spontaneously . I won't bore you with the calculations, but even 3 billion years (this is the time that has passed roughly since the formation of the earth until the first organisms appeared, or the evolutionists) are not enough.
    If anyone is interested, I can send them the calculations personally. Just imagine that you put all the raw materials that make up a computer into a large blender, and you spin it at high speed, and ask yourself what the chances are that at a certain time a computer will suddenly be created inside the blender.
    It is impossible without the mention of Sir Isaac Newton, who was, according to many, the personality who had the most influence on the development of science in general (according to many, even more than Einstein), who wrote the following:
    • "Was the eye contrived without skill in optics [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?"
    Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.
    That is, the one who created the eye and the ear had to have great intelligence and understanding of optics and sounds, obviously alluding to the Creator of the world, "Mercifully."
    Also, the story is known about Newton's atheist friend who entered his room and saw the model he made in order to teach the solar system and they asked: Sir Isaac, who made this model? Sir Isaac answered him with demonstrable nonchalance: What do you mean, it will happen by itself.
    The great physicist Lipson was decisive in his words: "And all this is not possible from the very fundamental laws of nature: the spontaneous formation of cells goes against the second law of thermodynamics! "
    Lipson, HS (1980) Phys. Bull. 31, 138
    After the miracle happened and the first cell was created, and let's assume for the sake of the matter that the miracle did happen, this is where the neo-Darwinism theory comes in that tries to explain the development of all organisms by a mechanism of mutations and natural selection. The criticisms of this proposed process are as follows:
    1. Each mutation alone has no selective value.
    We will explain this charge by an example: we will look at the process of the development of a crawling chicken. In order for a reptile to become a bird, a large cluster of changes is needed that will be applied to the front limbs which will cause them to become wings. It is clear to any reasonable person, including evolution believers, that this is not a single change. Thus, for example, feathers should appear, a change should be made in the structure of the bones of the limbs, a dedicated and unique nervous system should appear which would enable the movement of the wings, etc. Even with the theory of evolution, it should not be assumed that all the mutations occurred on one bright morning, but rather a process of millions of years when each change had to have a selective value which gave an existential advantage to create the subject of the mutation and which caused that in the struggle for the survival of the fittest only the subjects of the mutation survived in such a way that when it appeared The next mutation must have happened in an individual who already carries the previous mutation. (If we assume that there was no struggle for survival and the individual with the first mutation did not have an existential advantage, the chance that the next mutation in the line will apply to exactly the same individual to whom the first mutation happened is very small, if at all that individual will survive, since the carrying capacity of each habitat is limited, and if this single mutation did not give an existential advantage to that individual, there is a high chance that his descendants will become extinct. This is the reason why evolutionists must assume, and indeed they do not hide it, that every mutation had a selective value). Now suppose that the first mutation was the appearance of feathers on the reptile's fingers. Does this mutation have any selective value? Certainly not, because what good are feathers on a reptile's fingers? Furthermore, not only is there no selective value here, but such a mutation would interfere with the normal functioning of the current reptile. As we add mutations, we will increase the risk of losing the functionality of the previous organ, and we have not yet reached the rule of the new organ. If so, what is the driving force for the appearance of these mutations since they have no selective value.

    Moreover, if there is a need for the appearance of 20 new genes, for example, then the appearance of a new gene requires not one mutation but hundreds or at least dozens of mutations until a gene with a new normal protein is established, and it is unthinkable that every mutation along the axis of mutations will be a useful and valuable mutation selective.
    Sometimes there are excuses for this difficulty by saying that gene duplication has occurred, when one gene continues to function in the old function, while the other gene undergoes the changes. This reason is still not enough, because if each of the hundred mutations that occurred in the second gene did not have a selective value, what was the driving force for their clustering and establishment? And beyond that, even if we assume that in some mysterious way all 100 mutations appeared, and all of them were of selective value, one new gene is not enough, because a new trait, such as the transition from vas deferens to lungs for example, requires the grouping of tens if not hundreds of new genes.

    No wonder, then, that Prof. August Weissman, who gained a worldwide reputation as one of the founders of modern genetics. He writes in his book "The Omnipotent Power of Natural Selection": "Although we can never determine by observation, observation or laboratory experience the process of creating a new species by natural selection in the war of existence, we are forced to accept the view of natural selection, because She and she alone gives us the only explanation for the invention of the multifaceted animal world, without us having to assume that they were created by a higher power that willed it and created them with the first intention"...
    "Even I, who am a follower of the theory of natural selection, can only say: we have no proof that the initial differences, of the great changes that will later occur in the species, have a selective value, but we have to assume this, because otherwise Darwin's entire theory of natural selection falls apart."
    Brother and sister, I am short of understanding the intellectual necessity of assuming the truth of the theory. The reason why Darwin's whole theory falls apart is really convincing……
    Here is the place to emphasize that the concepts mutation and natural selection are correct concepts in themselves. For example, mutations serve as cornerstones in explaining many genetic diseases and many differences within the species (such as flies with red eyes versus flies with white eyes), as well as natural selection explains, for example, why in England after the industrial revolution the percentage of dark moths that survived on the background of houses and trees increased The sooty ones, compared to the white moths that stood out against this background and were prey for their predators. But under no circumstances can these true concepts be used to demonstrate the appearance of a new trait or a new species.
    This is a well-known trick of demagogues: they season the lie with parts of truth in order to market the lie more easily.
    We will end with two quotes: the one by Robert Jastraw who accepts the theory of evolution but in a moment of truth admits:
    • It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. Robert Jastrow, "Evolution: Selection for Perfection," Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.
    and the second by Moreno and Rabbi Charles Darwin:
    When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, p. 210

    2. Refuting the "evidence" from the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.
    Once again we have a classic example of false marketing by seasoning it with several truths. Indeed, we are constantly witnessing the appearance of strains resistant to various antibiotics, and science is in a constant race against the resistant bacteria that appear all the time.
    Only a layman (not an idiot) who is not familiar with the material will buy this charge. In no case of the appearance of resistance is it a matter of the appearance of a new gene that was created by a collection of many mutations that gave a new protein that confers resistance. In all cases it is one mutation (or a very small number of mutations that cause one of the following symptoms:

    A. To act, the antibiotic needs to bind to a specific site on the target protein, for example, a protein that is an important part of the ribosome (eg streptomycin). Any mutation that changes the structure of the binding site of the antibiotic to that protein, and does not cause the biological activity of that protein to be lost, will give a strain resistant to that antibiotic. Does the bacterium now "know" how to do a new biological activity that it didn't know how to do before? Not at all! The bacterium is simply not affected by the antibiotic now.
    B. In order to work, the antibiotic has to penetrate into the bacteria. There are antibiotics that use certain transport systems to penetrate the bacteria. Any mutation in the transport system that disrupts the ability of the antibiotic to bind to the transport proteins will prevent the effect of the antibiotic. Did a new feature of the bacterium appear here? Certainly not.
    third. In several examples it was shown that bacteria became resistant to penicillin by the appearance of penicillinase activity in the bacteria. This is a penicillinase gene that was previously present in the bacterium (God knows from where and why) but was not expressed for some reason, and if there was a disruption in the system that prevented its expression, and now the bacterium expresses the enzyme, then this bacterium has become resistant to penicillin. One mutation is enough for each of the above disturbances. If a new penicillinase gene appeared, I would admit that this is the appearance of a new trait, but as mentioned, this is not the case, and it cannot be such a situation, because we have shown above that in order to cause the appearance of a new gene, we need hundreds of nucleotides arranged in a perfect order, and after all, no one claims that it is possible in the morning One day it happened to some bacteria.

    3. The "evidence" from the fossils
    A. According to the theory of evolution, the majority of the fossils should have been transitional states between the various known groups, but to the heart's content (of evolution believers), there is not a single transitional form that would be half reptile half chicken, or half reptile half mammal and the like. In this context, we will again quote Darwin himself:
    "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
    Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
    or David Woodruff
    "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."

    David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

    Although, it should be noted that imprints of forms called archeopteryx were discovered in the rocks, which some claim to be the transitional form between reptiles and birds. In this context it should be noted that there are researchers (Fred Hoyle and Lee Spetner) who studied the forms and found that they are a forgery. In any case, even according to those who believe in the reliability of the findings, it is a creature with wings on the one hand, and a beak with teeth on the other. These are therefore perfect organs. We, on the other hand, are looking for transitional forms where the organs are not perfect, and in addition to that, the transitional forms should have been the majority of the fossils and not 11 finds out of thousands of fossils that have been recorded. In any case, look at Wikipedia and look at the pictures of the Archeopteryx coins, and decide for yourself what you can conclude from these findings. I'm not a paleontologist, but to a layman, I'm not impressed by them at all.

    B. All groups of organisms appeared at once in the Precambrian and no longer leave the possibility of speaking of a smooth development. In this context, we will quote the well-known evolutionist Gould:

    • "The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the beginning of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
    third. Many fossils appear out of their place expected according to evolution.
    In this context, we will quote Darwin himself again:
    • "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348

    d. I will conclude this section of the fossils with the following quote concerning the manipulations of skulls and teeth that were for more than a century the basis of theories that maintain the evolution of man from a common ancestor to an ape:

    "... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable." Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, no. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003

    And the following quote from Christian Schwabe:
    "It appears that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape. ... One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.”
    • Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 282.

    The honorable ones! I have raised the tip of the fork here from the sea of ​​evidence against the theory of evolution. Therefore, I am not overly impressed by the letter of the Rector and the President of the Hebrew University which was brought to our attention by our friend Prof. Ariel Cohen. If I were the president or the rector, I would stop the studies for ten minutes in order to denounce "Prof" Shlomo Zand, who wrote the book:
    • When and how was the Jewish people invented?, Tel Aviv, Resling, 2008
    o Comment le peuple juif fut inventé – De la Bible au Zionisme, Paris, Fayard, 2008
    Wonder who is a bigger danger Shlomo Zand or Gabi Avital?
    However, I would like to emphasize that I do not share Dr. Gabi Avital's opinion regarding the protection of the environment, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of its protection. As for global warming, I have not personally checked the data and reviews and I do not usually express an opinion in a field I do not understand.
    If there is one thing that I can state that I believe in with every fiber of my soul, it is the immense power of human logic and scientific practice which guarantees that eventually every truth will come to light sooner or later.
    If any of you have a factual reference (not blasphemy and demagoguery) that contradicts Yoel's words, please direct it to me and I will try to answer as much as time permits.
    Best regards,
    Zeev Friedman
    Biochemist, Jerusalem

  115. I've developed a real hammer for talkbacks of articles related to evolution, it's just a pleasure especially Avi Blizovsky who never loses energy, patiently and decisively answers full answers and doesn't disrespect any troll.
    T. N. and C.

  116. skeptic:
    So there, I moved here.
    I agree with what you have already been told.
    The article does not disprove evolution at all.
    He merely points to the possibility that the "family ties" between the sexes are a little different from what was previously thought.

    There is no scientific evidence that we are not the physical body.
    In fact the opposite is true and all the evidence points to us being exactly the physical body.
    I can give you a ton of information on the subject (including articles I wrote here on the site) but it seems to me that the following example has the highest chance of bringing you back to reality:

    Regarding the link to the Lancet - this is a link that has already received a lot of criticism and rebuttals.
    Neurophysiologist Kevin Nelson, in his highly recommended book The god Impulse, refers to this study on page 132. He is amazed at the lack of understanding of the author of the article who identified cardiac arrest with clinical death and thus writes:

    As a neurologist, I was stunned. As we have seen, after blood flow stops, the brain goes along quite nicely for ten seconds or so. It is not dead. Only after that ten-second point does the brain begin to malfunction, but it still doesn't approach death for several minutes, even when it has zero blood flow, the brain is nowhere near physically dead during near death experiences, it is alive and conscious.

    This is of course only a small section of a huge book in which it is well clarified what is known to science about the causes of NDE and all the mystical experiences related to it, such as an out-of-body experience and more.

    Maybe you should also read what I wrote here:

    What characterizes the religious is not their stupid beliefs.
    If the matter was boiled down to stupid beliefs, no one would be alarmed by them.
    The point is that they want and work to force the stupid laws that accompany these beliefs on the people who do not share those beliefs.
    In this matter - it is not a fringe group or the ultra-Orthodox only, but all religious currents - including the reformers.
    It is a goal that is shared by all and if you want to remain a free citizen you must fight against it.
    Pluralism is a logical thing only in front of pluralistic people.
    There is no reason to accept anti-pluralist subversion just in the name of pluralism.
    It's just suicide.

    It is true that religious people use the arguments you raised, but they only do so as an eye-catcher.
    There is no religion that is based on the ethereal idea of ​​the existence of a creator for the world.
    All religions also make verifiable claims about the Creator that they fabricate and not only do they contradict each other, but in each of them it can be shown that the Creator they believe in does not exist in reality.
    In other words - every god of every religion I know has empirical tests that prove his non-existence and the impossibility you speak of only exists for a god invented for the purposes of debate and not for the gods of religions.

    Your words are a colorful demonstration of a lack of understanding of what is happening here.
    Can you really point to anyone who has made evolution a way of life.
    I, for example, am an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, so you think that I get up in the morning, wash my face and teeth, and then what - Obel (from the language of evolution)?
    How can you turn evolution into a way of life?
    Did you even think twice about what you wrote?
    And New Age - what do you think it is if not a collection of baseless beliefs that people sell to others sometimes for money, sometimes causing irreparable damage, and never out of an understanding of reality?

  117. How are we and years, for example, better and greater than us like the late Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould or Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins YBL? Why do we need in Israel to invent science that does not exist.
    And as for your attempt to curse you came out as a blessing, I see the New Age philosophy as one of the biggest problems for humanity. True, despite the sincere attempts of the New Agers, there is only one, and if there is a tool that comes close to it, it is science.

  118. skeptic,

    I said - the article does not disprove the theory of evolution. The researchers did not pretend to this and themselves did not conclude anything about its correctness or incorrectness. What they did produce from their research is a slightly different and/or more accurate picture of the genetic family tree of humans and a number of apes, and in particular - a proposal for a new tool in the study of genetic developments among humans and apes.

    Today it is truly known that the origin of man is not from the ape. Perhaps this study that was published about a decade ago is responsible for this understanding. The picture is more complex than presented during the last century. There are different apes as well as different species that belong to the past and are no more. So as with everything in life the picture is complex. Is this a reason to raise our hands and solve our origin in something simpler like one or another creator? Why stop the investigation if its basis is logical and researchable?

    In any case, scientists do not or should not have anything in principle against a creator or intelligent design. Please come and present himself as the creator or alternatively bring evidence.

  119. It's been a long time since I've wanted to present my views here, and everything I have to say in general about these unnecessary debates between evolutionists and creationists on this site.

    The funniest thing is seeing you Mr. My father, who also built this amazing website, and a host of other "soldiers" of evolution who simply like to cut down every now and then new arses that bring links to Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak's lectures; Then to deny any belief in a rational / non-rational force that is responsible for consciousness / the reality of the crazy world. I would like to say something to both my father and Camilla and to everyone else, you religious fanatics are no less than all the primitive creationists who present their unreasonable positions here.

    You are not at all able to accept an option that the world is not simply divided according to evolutions of the universe \ plant \ inanimate.

    You have a lot of knowledge, no doubt, but it seems that even New Age philosophies no longer interest you and you just listen to pure science, without looking and thinking beyond even a little whether there is some responsibility for this reality.

    And no, I'm not talking about quantum or string theory, nor about the God of the Bible, simply a certain reason that we are, our entire history and that of the earth exists.

    So it is clear that there was evolution, there is no doubt about that and anyone who says otherwise is nothing more than an idiot.
    But sometimes taking this fact and turning it into a way of life without looking a little further seems a bit ridiculous to me.

    Now ask me what I believe? I believe we should shut up. We cannot say that there is/is no God, soul, world to come, and actually what does it matter?

    I really don't care if evolution is something completely random, or if all of reality and consciousness is nothing more than a particular case that happened in a vacuum, because I don't care if I live or not after I die, so I don't need to console myself.

    My logic as a person who has learned a lot in his life and whose mind works all the time, means that anyone who thinks or "knows" for sure that there is no higher power in this universe, in my opinion is a fanatic for everything.

  120. Amadeus, I liked it and I also agree with your comment #22.

    Regarding your argument in response 30: You probably haven't read the studies.

    Listen to the opinion of a philosophy professor who was skeptical of the matter until he read the
    Dr. Stevenson's research

  121. Hello - it is impossible to prove theories about reincarnation with scientific tools.

  122. Whoa, I think I asked about a sensitive point.
    All in all, I asked a simple question and now all the extreme fanatics here jump on me who hate religion and call for a crusade against everything that does not match their worldview.
    It has nothing to do with religion, I'm not religious, I just asked a question.
    If you have an answer I would love to receive it.
    The article exaggerates evolution because according to evolution the chimpanzees should be close to us while according to the article it turns out exactly the opposite.
    I hope that Michael Rothschild will pass by, you can talk to him, he seems to be the only intelligent person among all the bunch of punks here

  123. Abby, you didn't get the point. This is not a matter of a home audience, we are talking about the general public who do not really understand science. Creationists know how to speak, they have excellent rhetoric, they practiced every sentence at home, and they know how to convince people. The scientists will always lose if all they continue to do is read the Latin names of fossils, and tell how beautiful the theory of evolution is and how friendly it is to the environment.

  124. Father, you are doing exactly what the creationists do:
    You resist accepting scientific information just because it goes against your worldview.
    This is a point to think about.

  125. Hello - clinical death is not death and therefore returning from it is not returning from death. Only brain death is final death.
    To Amadeus - the link you provided was already provided last week by Berathan to prove his side. Beyond the point that this is like my argument with Amnon Yitzhak - he has no chance, because it always takes place when the creation has the advantage of a home audience. Universities and rightfully so do not like to invite creationists because they will add nothing to the research and use this invitation as proof that their opinion is a legitimate scientific opinion.
    (This is the reason why Haron Yaya's request for a lecture was rejected, I think at Bar Ilan or at the Hebrew University).

  126. Father, I do not agree with you.
    Once it has been demonstrated in scientific studies that these phenomena exist - it is no longer "supernatural".

    Regarding imagination
    Take for example the study of Dr. Pim van Lummel which was indeed published in a scientific journal (Lancet).
    Over 300 subjects who had a heart attack and their EIG is flat (clinical death)
    There is no similarity here.

    I tried to say - that the scientific method can distinguish between the chaff and the chaff (Religion, New Age)
    and take an important part in all aspects of public life.

  127. The problem here is not bad science, but bad philosophy. The supporters of evolution don't really understand how to fight them. The debate here is not so much about the facts, but more about their interpretation. This is something that really stood out, for example, in a debate I saw recently between a creationist and a molecular biologist -


    The scientists think that it is enough to present the facts to the public as they are, and only if people knew enough, then they would be convinced of the correctness of evolution.
    So first of all you have to understand a very basic thing - it is impossible to disprove a metaphysical view with the help of science and empirical data. Belief in the Creator is a metaphysical belief that has nothing to do with facts. No empirical fact will ever disprove the existence of God, because any data, with enough creativity, can be interpreted as proof of the existence of an intelligent designer. Both sides constantly confuse scientific questions with philosophical questions. The creationists try to present a religious-metaphysical view as science, and the supporters of evolution like Richard Dawkins and the other "new atheists", fall into the trap and think that they are conducting a scientific debate with them. When Dawkins says that the question of God's existence is a scientific question, he falls into the trap they have set, because it allows them to present their religious belief as science. Instead of admitting that science does not interest them, and what they want is to spread Christianity, they can claim that they are acting in the name of scientific truth, and therefore the biology textbooks should be corrected so as not to lie to children.
    Then we get caught up in all kinds of ridiculous and senseless debates - micro evolution or macro evolution, was the archeopteryx a chicken or a dinosaur, is resistance to antibiotics an example of the acquisition of new traits, is the appendix redundant or not, is the eye an example of intelligent planning or "defective" planning, etc. '. Their strategy is to take all sorts of popular examples of evolution that the city borrows from children's textbooks, and present the matter as if evolution rose and fell on the story of the moths from Manchester, or on errors in measuring the age of stalactites under some bridge. These people are demagogues, so even if you see that they are wrong in every word they say, they will always be able to find new examples and continue using them.
    There is no point in arguing with them about science - but to expose the logical fallacies they use, to show the inconsistency in their claims, and not to allow them to use scientific arguments to justify obviously unscientific views. Until evolutionists start taking philosophy seriously, they will lose.

  128. Churchill said about the Americans that:
    "You can count on them to always reach the right solution.... After trying all the wrong options!
    And as for religion... it has already been said that: "The root of evil is faith."
    Truly one and only the more evil and evil deeds
    are done out of religious conviction,

  129. It's a bit hard to teach scientific evidence for something that exists in people's imaginations. There is no rejection here of only religious ideas from the point of view that those who conceived them are members of traditional religions, but any supernatural idea, even if it comes under a modern guise. Science is not New Age. You can't put things into it that aren't in it.
    There are New Age sites that also report scientific news, you wouldn't want the scientist to be like them either. Right?

  130. I am in favor of teaching evolution +
    Teach the scientific evidence that we are not the physical body.

    Then it will be possible to say that we teach science.
    Until then it's a war of agendas.

    And in general, if mainstream science had advanced the evidence and foundations for the discoveries - it would have succeeded in doing what it so longed for - entering the niche that religion and its lies currently fill.

    The subject of life after death, the reincarnation of the soul and leaving the body has been studied scientifically from many angles
    (including the requirement from response 16)

    On the subject of reincarnation, one can start with the famous studies (BA) of Dr. Ian Stevenson

    On the topic of leaving the body

  131. Ignorance is not a good weapon against stupidity. Time does not work in our favor. They will not become wise if they are given up.

  132. Avi, I don't agree with you, you sound as extreme as their fringes.
    Come on, all I'm talking about is accepting with understanding those who need to believe.
    Don't laugh at them wittily like they sometimes enjoy on this site.

  133. On the other hand - only scientific materials that have been peer-reviewed and published in recognized scientific journals enter the Hidan website.

  134. For the secular, absolutely not. Your attitude is defeatist. We must bring intelligence to the brainwashed as well. After all, they have endless mechanisms of repentance and they both bring children and steal ours. If we don't organize like them, we won't be. In the case of Israel, the state will not exist either. In the case of the loss of the USA - this is a sure prescription for a return to the Middle Ages.

  135. It is very difficult to convince those who believe in God that the theory of evolution is true.
    I realized a long time ago that there is no point in trying to convince those who are convinced and don't want to try to listen.
    The religion or belief has been around for thousands of years and there is probably a reason for that. Many people need it for emotional and psychological reasons. So try to understand and not argue arrogantly against those who believe in God. Perhaps our tolerance will serve as an example to them.

  136. Although the "skeptic" (2) is an excellent example of the sad joke the first commenter talked about, but in my opinion religion has long since gone beyond being just a sad joke. Religion is so dangerous because as soon as a blanket permission is built into it for others to think for you it is only a matter of time until the establishment takes advantage of it in the most cynical and evil way. This is what happened in fascist regimes and this is what happened and is happening in the religious establishments, including here in Israel. No, this is not a sad joke, this is an existential danger to sane life in the State of Israel, and if there is anyone here who has not yet woken up and realized that at this very moment we are already in the midst of a war over the character of the State of Israel and its future, he is allowing himself a luxury that we simply cannot afford today. Religion and science are not compatible, while science is the attempt to reach a better description of the reality around us while being willing to give up theories and beliefs that dominated before and were found to be wrong or insufficient (a waiver that happened and happens in science many times) Religion is the attempt to preserve and maintain an ancient belief and knowledge that has been proven to be wrong While being willing to give up basic logic, moral values ​​such as telling the truth and even being willing to commit real crimes including the use of simple violence that endangers human life. The time has come for all humans to start taking responsibility for their lives and their environment and abandon these gods.

  137. The two books as I wrote above - "The Field" and "The Holographic Universe" - are full of the results of dozens of scientific studies and documented observations according to all accepted scientific standards that indicate that there is more to us than meets the eye.

    Beyond that, everyone is welcome to find their own way - I have no interest in arguing.

  138. to the other me
    Could you shed some light in the form of links to relevant scientific studies that support what you wrote?

  139. If this is a joke - I didn't get it
    What I was talking about are scientific studies that meet every scientific standard but did not enter the known scientific world picture. Below are the studies presented in the book "The Field".
    It has no place on the science site?

  140. That's why there's another site that doesn't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a government official, not even Apache. The science site is not the address.

  141. Does he have a copyright on the name??
    Obviously I didn't mean it... I meant other mainstream science

  142. And now to pour some fire on the fire:
    Everything fits together in the theory of the ancient astronaut... a huge evolutionary leap that resulted from the intervention of "Aleks" (aliens) who carried out genetic engineering on the ancient man. The story of the giants (Anonki) and the daughters of man in the Bible is a memory and a remnant of the matter - it is found in many ancient cultures, especially Sumerian.

    Eyal A. - Even if we were not created by an external god (which is an imaginary creation of religion that was created to control people - because if God is external to us and there are only a select few who can communicate with him then everything they say is from the mouth of a living God... what a mighty power). How do you conclude that there is no soul, reincarnation, and the next world? What exact definition of all these are you referring to - these are very amorphous concepts and as a science enthusiast, you need to define them precisely and only then rule them out.

    The gods are us, the responsibility for our lives is completely ours, we create our reality every moment by thinking (consciously or not) and we are eternal (hereafter the next world) the body is only a suit that allows us to be here and experience. We have all evolved for millions of years and basically remained a class because the goal is to conquer ourselves to understand who we really are and overlap from here back to where we came from.

    I could go on with quantum mechanics, string theory and multiple dimensions not to mention infinite parallel realities but I don't feel like typing anymore.

    I have no interest in convincing you, those who are open to research beyond what the scientific current has decided is acceptable can find the information and the way by themselves. The book "The Field" (scientific studies) and the book "The Holographic Universe" (amazing medical documentation of spontaneous recovery from all kinds of terminal illnesses) are a good place to start.

    There is another science - not everyone bends to the murky mainstream that denies even the possibility of research in these fields.

  143. These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans. They also show that HERV-K replicated as a virus and reinfected the germline of the common ancestor of the four modern species during the period of time when the lineages were separating and demonstrate the utility of using HERV-K to trace human evolution.

  144. Gershon, there's no need to get excited.

    I entered, I read, I was disappointed. You are not even a skeptic. Maximum liar.
    The article you attached is the work of scientists (how could it not be) and so is the work itself. There is no statement in it about the correctness or incorrectness of evolution, neither explicitly nor implicitly. And now tell me - is it so painful to admit that there is no afterlife? that there is no god? no soul? Is there no reincarnation? Is there no one watching over you from above? Is it so painful to take full responsibility for your life, your death and simply your fate? so painful? I feel sorry for such people. And at the same time jealous of them. Life would be so much simpler if there really was any of the above. Or as they say - ignorance is a blessing.

  145. Skeptic - you are one of the ignorant and it is sad, you are not a skeptic you are a fool. Evolution is not a theory it is a fact. What it says there is that according to their findings we are not "siblings" of chimpanzees, but that we have a more ancient ancestor, that's all.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.