In India, tiny leg bones of the rabbit's ancestor were found, from 53 million years ago and smaller in size than the Easter bunny
These fossils are 35 million years older than anything discovered so far, and they have been called lagomorph in India. "The discovery was unexpected," said Prof. Kenneth Rose, from the Faculty of Functional Anatomy and Evolution at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. "Without a doubt, this is a new species, and without a doubt it is also a new genus and maybe even belongs to a new family," he added.
The creature discovered is smaller than a native Easter bunny, about the size of a hamster, and weighs less than 100 grams. The bones that were found are integrated into material deposits, in an area previously covered by marshes and bays near a beach, which indicates that the creature lived in some kind of coastal environment.
The new creature, whose discovery was reported in the Royal Society, is also the oldest yonican identified in India from the Cenozoic era - the age of mammals, which occurred after the extinction event that wiped out all non-flying dinosaurs, Rose said. Rose compared the bones to eight living species of rabbits and hamsters, and two types of pikas - creatures from the rabbit family that live in the Rocky Mountains and other mountainous areas. Rabbits and hamsters belong to one of the two rabbit families known as rabbits, while voles belong to the other family called Ochotonidae. Evidence from the past shows that these two families split about 35 million years ago.
Unlike patellae, which do not jump, the bones showed advanced features that were not present in a non-jumping rabbit-like animal. In fact the bones were similar, but more complex than the ancient fossils of rabbits from the middle Eocene era, 48 million years ago. In his estimation, this species originated in Central Asia, and it spread to India immediately after it collided with Asia.
47 תגובות
a lie
to No. 3.
Man, I think you need urgent medical help. It seems to me that a psychiatrist would determine without a shadow of a doubt that you suffer from schizophrenia: you are convinced that we are in the year five thousand and something after the creation of the world by some higher power that you hear his voice in your head and tell you what is good and what is bad and perform all kinds of miracles and wonders. You are probably also Performs all kinds of daily obsessive activities (rituals) in which you talk to imaginary characters. In short, you have all the symptoms of schizophrenia...
And for those interested in more creepy stories, here is another sample:
Since the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of the Sanhedrin (the courts authorized to impose death sentences) the authority to punish was given to the discretion of the court, to beat, excommunicate, excommunicate and even kill. This is how it is explained in the Talmud: "Ar Elazar ben Jacob: I heard that the Sabbath prepares punishments that are not from the Torah, and not to transgress the words of the Torah but to make a reservation to the Torah; And the act of one man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of pigeons, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved it, but because the time needed it. . And again, there was a case of one man who slapped his wife [a husband's wife] under the fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because he deserved it - but because the time required it [even though the written law does not require flogging, the court required flogging so that the burglaries would not increase]!" PB).
Regarding the permission to kill infidels, it is written in the Shulchan Aruch:
"The people of Israel, and those who worship the stars, or the one who commits offenses to anger, even (d) eat indecency or wear clothing that causes anger; and the heretics, and those who disbelieve in the Torah and prophecy from Israel, would be in the habit of rioting in the Land of Israel. If he had the power to riot with a sword, with a sword, They were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. How, one of them saw that he had fallen into the well and the ladder in the well, first and removed him and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and we will bring him back to you, and the like in these words (Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah Siman Kanah Section B).
borrowed:
Fortunately, the ultra-orthodox establishment does not have many powers, so it is difficult to find examples of it punishing criminals these days. Even criminals who should have been punished, such as divorce refusers, he does not punish.
Who does he punish? Whoever he can, and because he cannot punish criminals, he punishes the innocent.
Let's ignore for a moment all the tyranny and refusals of the divorce that he punishes for not doing injustice in the palm of his hand.
Let's also ignore all the hiton invalids of all kinds and all the people who cannot receive the full rights of the citizen because of all kinds of nonsense (some of it nonsense that there are sects in Judaism that would ignore them but the Orthodox sect took over the State of Israel and therefore they are law).
Instead of all this and instead of also talking about the gays and lesbians for whom all you are willing to do is to use terms that are "politically correct" and say (without any factual basis) that you have already answered questions about them, let's talk a little about a shocking ruling that was passed by the Rabbinical Court in Ashdod in 1966.
As is well known - when a married person dies without leaving behind any offspring - the religion of Moses and Israel requires the operation of the yabum - on the grounds of the wife by the dead husband's brother. In order to avoid birth, there is an operation in Judaism called halitza, within the framework of which the woman can be freed from the above-mentioned disgraceful sentence. But what? Halitza cannot be performed by a deaf person.
As fate would have it, a deaf woman became a widow before she and her husband had children.
Her husband had a brother but this brother was married.
The woman appealed to the rabbinical court with a request that they release her from the mitzvot of having a baby and leave her alone.
The court - in today's Israel - I recall, determined that there would not be. He ordered my husband's brother to be a bigamist for one day, marry his late brother's wife, marry her and divorce her the next day.
This is how it happened that in the State of Israel in the XNUMXth century, a woman was raped under the protection (and mitzvot) of the law!
I don't know what other factors you mean when you talk about the eaters of the state coffers, but it is clear that there is no factor that is even comparable in scope and lack of contribution to the yeshiva students, so don't go expressing the strange bewilderment that you are perplexed. I, for my part, am ready to generalize my argument and talk about "the yeshiva students and Yossi" on the assumption that the other guy who eats the state coffers is named Yossi (and I ask in advance the forgiveness of all the Yossi who do not eat the state coffers, just as I ask the forgiveness of the one who eats the state coffers for disrupting his name).
To Michael,
I would gladly expand on the matter, but my time absolutely does not allow me.
I have already extended on this website the explanation of Judaism's punishment policy (a policy that believes in presenting the scale of values through the presentation of a scale of punishment, but is not at all interested in the implementation(!!) of punishment, and this is through placing insurmountable limitations during the procedure (rejecting the possibility of self-incrimination and the presentation of circumstantial evidence, for example) ); A policy that, amazingly, is completely in line with the concept of punishment of contemporary experts in criminal law (you can believe me a little, this is in my 'official' area of knowledge).
I don't know when the 'representatives of Judaism' have punished anyone in the last hundred years (but I know of many times that Mapai representatives have punished with incredible cruelty: since the De Haan case and the Sazon case and Meir Slansky and Altana until the violence in Amona, nothing has changed); what I do know It is that the rejection of a group of individuals who lead a lifestyle that seems wrong to them is the most legitimate way if you finally open the classic book 'On Freedom'. You will see that he - the father of modern liberalism - denies any interference by society in the individual's lifestyle (except where it harms others), arguing that it is enough for society to distance itself from those who it deems lead an improper lifestyle.
I am only asking you, in light of your lack of official knowledge of Judaism (knowledge that is based on systematic and orderly learning over many years), to recognize the possibility that the image of Judaism as it is depicted in your eyes is as far from what it really is as east from west (you can believe me a little on this too; this is the field of knowledge My second 'official').
Since I have already stated many times that in my opinion (which is expressly the Rambam's opinion) yeshiva should not take even one shekel from the state, I can freely wonder (and not for the first time) why yeshiva students 'steal' more than the rest of the public coffers.
Bye
I would like to point out that I have never been a religious person, but I studied for several years in a religious school in Malkati, grades 4-6, and in the 7th grade, I studied at a yeshiva named after Rabbi Kook in Ma'alot, and all this by my parents' decision, not because they wanted me to be religious, but because religious education is really more Effective because it consolidates the idea of God as an idea, which gives less freedom of expression to the student and results in fewer behavioral problems, which is a great thing for someone who likes to get everything in the face and not to ask questions even though a hyperactive and curious cynic like me did not manage in this framework it was a very ideal framework for many people how to say without sounding like suffering from a narcissistic disorder more ignorant and accepting truths without proof than me and if you are wondering the straw that broke the camel's back was not how old the earth is or how long we are exist or if there were miracles but I simply could not understand how a concept that is typical of the 2000s as aliens is explained by a rabbi as angels it was simply a market not It's just that he said that science fiction (and yes, as long as we didn't push them, no mathematical formula will change that) is pure science, but it also has an ancient explanation long before the concept of aliens was prevalent, and then, like a domino effect, I freed myself from the shackles of monotheistic belief and realized that there is nothing better From being freed from God's yoke, of course, all the virtues and things that can be taken away remained with me and the Torah became a legendary history book
"Knowledge is power" Two attributes of the monotheistic God is eternal and omnipotent…
He gave two prohibitions in Paradise: you shall not eat from the tree of life and you shall not eat from the tree of knowledge...
Man sinned in the tree of knowledge and not in the tree of life, which means that over the years he is omnipotent, but no man is an individual in terms of a species because a species is 1 just like an anthill, he is one animal that ran towards one goal into the unknown... What is more, he becomes wiser year by year in the square and philosophers The ancients knew that knowledge does not go hand in hand with the mother of God because they also saw contradictions in their faith and those who had reason would not have opposed the idea of God as it was written to him because otherwise he would have gone overboard....
But as you can see as humanity progresses so does the knowledge it created according to governance methods such as democracy which harmed the possibility of harming a human being just because his belief deviates from the norm and then when everyone has their freedom of choice certain people chose to oppose the idea that was written to them and if so most of them did not rule out the the theory of divinity but only proved how ignorant we were in understanding it and thanks to those people any idiot can access a huge database and actually understand that olives do not make you senile
But if it's like since the days of the Egyptians, religion remains and will be a political force that can ignite wars for reasons that previously did not make sense, such as the Inquisition, and nowadays, well, there is no need to go into detail for common sense... let's not forget that World War II was also ignited because of certain beliefs that bordered on the idea of religion
Personally, I have nothing against a religious person. On the contrary, I see a religious person who gives charity and my heart is filled with light, but when it concerns the collective, it reaches dark corners into religious racism, killing and murder without distinction, exactly what the terrorists do, believing that they are in an inferior position and can only harness religion to recruit suicide bombers. And just like the Jewish terrorist in Rabin Square did
I hope that the believers, instead of disputing my words, will check and see if there is any historical truth to them and maybe then reconsider that maybe God is not what we thought he was?
When religion is convenient, this is what is said today, and when it is convenient otherwise, this is what was written thousands of years ago
borrowed:
First of all, the discussion with you is particularly difficult because you disapprove of everything that the official representatives of Judaism say and claim that Judaism is something different from what they represent.
I hope you accept the claim that the representatives of Judaism demand to punish many (and even do it themselves quite often). Maybe you think they don't fulfill the mitzvot of Judaism, but I still find it more convenient to see the religion as a set of rules for a group and not for a single person.
Regarding you - I don't know what you call a punishment, but in my opinion condemnation is also a punishment, and even if you are against any other punishment (and provided) it is true that you often take the punishment of condemnation personally.
And what did I say in general - I said that you want to punish innocents just like criminals.
If you claim that you do not want to punish criminals, I have no choice but to correct my argument and say that if so you only want to punish innocents and not punish criminals.
It is said about this - he who has mercy on the cruel will find himself being cruel to the merciful.
In your response, Legal, you demonstrate this very well. I don't want a country where it pays to be a thief and you are punished for acting fairly.
By the way, our country is getting such a color in the process (which is no longer a crawler but a race) as the people of his teachings and his art (who are nothing but thieves) multiply.
Again - I know that you say that you do not support their behavior, but I see your approach to the matter as a show that is fat and stressed. They are a direct result of the attitude you tirelessly promote.
To Michael,
Where did I ask to punish criminals? I have stated more than once that in my opinion, the entire system of criminal punishment (with the exception of the attitude towards pathological delinquency) is completely unnecessary.
Legal c. dear,
Have you ever measured the total number of beatings and bruises that the prisoner receives in every prison from the police officers and guards and other cellmates (or that he gives them)? I am not talking about Omri but about any 'just' prisoner.
Viewing the 'modern' punishments as considerate and the classic punishments as cruel is the property of only those who do not at all know prison life (and the life on the way there) closely, and is simply the fruit of a debunked Western righteousness (if you have heard of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Katlan case, see In the opinion of the minority there; the only one, in my opinion, who observed reality in a sober way).
By the way: in Judaism they don't do anything to a thief. If he is caught, he pays double and if he confesses, he is also exempt from this poor doubling. In the state of Halacha it is most profitable to be a thief.
I am thrilled by the sensitivity of Judaism (or any other religion) to the sexual needs of the prisoner (of which, without a doubt, some of them - the sexually harassers, the rapists in the XNUMXth century - even showed the necessity of sex in their lives)! After all, what is simpler than cutting off the thief's hand (Islam) , to beat him vigorously (Judaism) or even commit an act of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (the "ass" in the original!)? And what will be the punishment for the rapist...?
borrowed:
And I already hoped you were cured!
You insist on calling atheism a religion.
It's just like you would call abstinence from smoking a kind of drug.
I have explained to you thousands of times the differences and you are on yours (and unfortunately the members of your group lend a hand in mine as well).
You allow yourself to laugh at certain things as a substitute for understanding them. It's a shame, but mostly for you.
You also ask that innocent people be punished just as criminals are punished, but overall you can be understood. You are, after all, religious.
By the way, and apropos, and in a closed article, and since the subject has already been raised:
All the sensitivity that exists today in Western culture to a person's right to maintain his sexual identity and to exercise it, and therefore the unbridled attacks on Judaism and its attitude to homosexuality is truly laughable when we recall the absence of any of that sensitivity when Western culture punishes criminals: the accepted punishment today is imprisonment, when no one is Brings to his mind the great suffering involved in terms of the denial of the prisoner's sexual needs.
It can be said, indeed, that denying the sexual needs of the prisoner is justified because he is a criminal, but considering the sensitivity to the sexual needs of the homosexual, the lack of any sensitivity to the sexual needs of a poor pickpocket, who without hesitation could be sent to prison for a year, raises wild laughter.
In Judaism there is no prison sentence at all in the sense of today, and no one is ever removed from his family, and surprisingly the number of studies in criminology and sociology on the horror and cruelty of the prison sentence for a prisoner and his family members and for society only increases every day (exactly like the number of prisoners in the United States of America...)
Bye
7000 for the rabbit
Michael's obsession with reactivity to responses with a religious flavor only proves how much religion is a dominant component of human nature, since inquisitorial atheism is also a type of religion.
I also commented on his obsession with Judaism's treatment of same-sex couples (that's what it is common today to call gays in the politically correct research community) on the pages of this website, and I gave up.
As for myself, I allow myself to chuckle at how I - a yeshiva student for many years (but today, unfortunately, not) - know how to quote chapter 2 of G. S. Mill (and some other classic philosophy books) and apply it in the internet forums much better than him.
Bye
To Michael:
are not you tired?
Thank you for your persistence...
A person:
Just because there's no way to prove something doesn't mean it's a reasonable assumption.
When I tell someone who was created a few seconds ago, I tell him this because I know he doesn't think that way and I want to point out to him the contradiction that exists between his approach to this question and his approach to the subject of the age of the world.
In general, I also try to explain to people the idea of Ockham's razor and the need not to add elements to the picture that do not contribute to its explanatory power.
You might be surprised to hear, but persuasion actually works sometimes.
All this adds up to the fact that, in my opinion, religion (and tolerance towards it!) is the most dangerous phenomenon in society.
Almost all wars have been caused by religion or religion-like phenomena (based on accepting dogma without critical thought).
Religion is also a factor in a considerable part of the distortions of justice in society in peaceful situations. I gave as an example the issue of the treatment of homosexuals and I repeat and emphasize the fact that your tolerance towards a religious approach (which people accept by choice!) is at odds with the tolerance that I want to believe you want to be shown towards homosexuals (which, as mentioned, they have no choice).
A similar contradiction also exists between your acceptance of the religious approach and your desire for the state to be a state of law. The calls for breaking the law because of the state's lack of authority are not an accidental phenomenon. They are a direct and natural result of religion.
The above is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is enough to clarify why it is important to me that people abandon the religious approach in favor of the critical and scientific approach.
We have to remember that this is not just intellectual entertainment, but our lives.
Ya are called.
The "religious" commenter is close to a Woody Troll. Those who do not know what a troll is welcome to read
I suggest ignoring provocative comments.
I would prefer to read objective comments concerning the content of the article.
God can be left to other forums or websites.
Michael,
I'm afraid because I probably didn't explain myself correctly.
The way in which certain people enter every scientific article and declare that the scientific discoveries here are nonsense and that the truth and all the truth is found in the Bible is despicable, invalid and above all, especially on a site like this, harms the reading experience of other people.
And I didn't come to defend anyone.
After several years of crusading against religion, I realized the irony in the last sentence. I don't know I'm right, just like I don't know if anyone else is right. As you showed at the beginning of the discussion, I could have been created 3 minutes ago, and if so, and I have no way of proving otherwise, there is no point in saying that I am more right than someone else.
This claim is also valid for religious people. Most of them, but not all, avoid learning the thing they deny. Likewise the scientists.
You will surely be surprised to hear that there are many currents in Judaism, and even though some are fanatics, and avoid military service, etc., there are very smart people and some are even considered scientists in Israel. How do they not discover the contradiction after many and varied titles? Maybe because it is not that significant?
I do not intend to change your beliefs, Yehuda's, or anyone's here. The "there is no evolution" responses are invalid, as are the "the religious are idiots" responses.
And as a side note I wrote that such a debate is impossible in the science-religion arena, because religion plays football and science plays basketball, and if you try to kick a basket or dribble into a goal, it will only end in blows. The more correct approach is, according to my understanding only, the arena of religion-philosophy, since there the laws are more similar.
I hope I was able to explain why you have no reason to be offended by my response, and maybe explain my point of view a little better.
A person.
Something else for the person:
The religious also try to use scientific claims to justify their words. This does not make their words scientific. The fact that the Nazis desecrated the name of science in the same way is also not related to science. If Nazism has anything to do with religion, it is precisely religion because, just like it, it is based on faith (in lies) instead of critical thinking (and by the way, no wonder that the highlight of the Nazis' hate campaign was directed against Judaism because this hatred took a ride on ancient inter-religious hatred).
You say that you shouldn't argue with religious people only because they don't accept arguments based on logic and findings as persuasive, and for that I can only tell you this: it turns out that you underestimate them much more than I do.
I'm sorry Adam:
Also for messing up your name - I just didn't see well, and also for not understanding my words.
I explained why Hawking's words are nonsense especially when they are said without mentioning a specific religion and therefore the fact that you comment on my reading comprehension indicates your stumbling.
The scientific method does not include the reasoning of hanging on to tall trees. This is part of the religious method, but in the scientific method every statement of every person is open to criticism and the objection to criticism should refer to the content of the things being reviewed and the content of the criticism and not to who said what.
As long as you follow the method of hanging on to high stakes you will get nowhere, but if you have something to comment on the content of things (and probably not because I assume it is not out of shame) you are welcome to do so.
You write that you are not religious, so it is not at all clear to me why you allow yourself to behave dishonestly when you come to defend religion. I don't justify it with religious people either, but with secular people it is completely incomprehensible to me. Doesn't it bother you to continue to preach morals to us that we argue and raise scientific arguments on a site whose entire essence is scientific while some religious people force us to address their religious claims?
Doesn't it seem more logical to you to preach to the religious to leave their vain claims in ultra-Orthodox rooms?
To Michael.
A. I didn't attack you, so if you're a wise man, there's no need to change the letters in my name.
B. It turns out that I am not the only one who has a problem with reading comprehension, because I wrote that Hawking said that science does not contradict religion and not the other way around. And he wasn't talking about a specific religion.
third. If even Hawking can talk nonsense, then your claims need to look for some other basis, since Hawking wrote much of the science you are basing it on. And if one of today's most respected scientists is talking nonsense, then you, Michael, are not immune to spouting a little mistake here and there, not to mention unnecessary insults.
to save etc.,
I am not a religious person, and I also argue into the wee hours of the night with skeptics who have never opened a science book, and know that the Big Bang did not happen, while the same innovations in science heat their food in the kitchen, or allow them to write responses to this article on the computer.
And I didn't start a discussion about whether the Inquisition burned scientists or not. The Nazis in turn burned Jews on scientific grounds. So is science to blame?
In science you base your conclusions on measurements you make in the world around you, and in religion you don't. Hence, the basis of the debate does not come from the same place, and for that reason a religious person will never give up his view, just as you will not give up yours.
And why is philosophy a more correct angle for understanding the debate with religion? Because in philosophy, except for the sentence "I think, therefore I exist", you can rule out everything, in the same way that religion gives an answer to everything.
Never stop learning and researching. And every child, whether religious or not, should study physics, biology and chemistry. Also, with some ancestral heritage, also religion.
With a cool night greeting,
A person.
No. Ben-Ner
Allow me to be "fascinated" by the abundance of conclusions that Indian scientists manage to draw from a piece of bone weighing a gram or two that was stuck in an egg for 53 million years.
Believe me I will be ready to accept any conclusion if they explain to me how they got it.
What makes them, for example, conclude that it is a rabbit?
And please, don't compare this discovery to some nano-tech device that just came out of the factory.
And also don't make me dismiss all science from time immemorial just because I'm skeptical of a gram and a half of rabbit feet.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To restore your faith in me, tonight before going to bed I will count jumping rabbits instead of jumping sheep, and Dolly, peace be upon her, forgive me until tomorrow.
to Mr. Adam etc.
If you have read our comments here on the science website, you must have noticed that we are not afraid to attack Newton, Einstein, science, religion, and even the dearest of all - Avi Belizosky, so to say that Stephen Hawking said something.... So he said, so what?
Therefore, don't be surprised if I also warn you about your following words:
"Science and religion are not on the same playing field. These are not the same laws." End quote.
So, my dear friend Mr. Adam, etc., we have not yet forgotten the fires of the Inquisition, which burned a number of scientists here and there on its grounds, and the smell of their roasted flesh still rises in our noses. So don't tell me how the religious people treat those who have opinions contrary to theirs. And believe me, Mr. Adam, etc., those bonfires were absolutely not philosophical!
So check your tassels before you make your "innocent" suggestion about philosophical debates, and if we don't stand guard, all study of science for its own sake will immediately be canceled and darkness will cover everything.
Have a cool evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A young man of Eden:
You are ghost reading but apparently you are not reading accurately.
There are thousands of contradictions between religion and science and all (but all!!!) the debates about religion that develop on this site are because some religious person jumps in and tries to contradict the conclusions of science using the "information" he obtained from reading some thousand-year-old book.
If the religious did not see a contradiction, the topic of religion would never come up here!
I don't know if Hawking said what you claim but if he did it's just proof that he too can say nonsense.
For example - do you know what religion he was talking about? Doesn't every religion contradict science? Also a religion that forbids engaging in science? Did he talk about Judaism?
Besides, as I said, religion is not just a belief. In our country you cannot marry, divorce, be born or be buried without it and in many ways your steps are products because of the religious coercion that eats away at us. This is because religion is a system of laws and not just a belief, only that unlike normal systems of laws, here it is a system that some people think is superior to any system of laws enacted by the state because it was given by God. Since God has disappeared from the area (as if he had ever been there!) then it is also impossible to change the religion (because only he can but he can't because he is gone).
You preach to us to allow everyone to believe what they want and thus you preach, in fact, to a situation where not even everyone is allowed to be what they are (not by choice): important, for example, about homosexuals. These are ordinary people whom nature has imposed upon them and because of this imposition the religious abuse them.
I'm usually a "ghost reader" on this site.
Basically on all sites. Does not jump to respond.
If Stephen Hawking could write in his book A Brief History of Time that there is no contradiction to God in science, we can humble ourselves and listen.
Science and religion are not on the same playing field. These are not the same laws. If you want to argue about religion, you can do it from a philosophical point of view, not a scientific one. Because no matter what the scientist says, religion will have an answer. That's how it works, there are no empty fields.
And I don't think it's out of place in any article about evolution or something that happened X years ago to start a bloody discussion about the truth of Judaism, or any other religion for that matter.
It may very well be that this ancient rabbit's foot was created that way for us to find it, and it may not be. We have no proof one way or the other, and the very debate is unnecessary (not to mention the insults).
The religious man will come and say, but the world was created and so on, and the scientist will come and say there are no proofs.
Many things in science also have no proof, yet they work for the time being. A theory is good as long as there is no better one. And to definitively say there is or isn't God is a matter of faith alone.
I think it is our place as human beings to learn a little humility, and sometimes to recognize the fact that we do not know all the facts.
Teach to respect your brother's faith.
For an obelisk
Happy and almost tears in my eyes, and after all it is said: - Whoever saves one soul is as if he saved the entire cosmos. Although there was not much to save, but you are on the right path. Now you just have to improve, because it has already been said:- "And you uttered it day and night", and you will agree with me that the reference was not to the Matrix and its heroes.
And to all those who say that there is no point in confronting religious people and fanatics, I must point out that at least some religious people I questioned, and in many others I cast doubts.
Good evening and blessed
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What you've made clear, Oblix, is that you don't relate to the things being said here.
I, as mentioned, have never introduced religion into a scientific discussion and I can assure you that I will never do so. It's just stupid.
In this discussion specifically, the one who brought up "reasons" from religion was Israel and the one who brought religion into the focus of the discussion was you.
What is not clear here?
Sho - that he is*
BSD
Sabdarmish Yehuda: I thank you for your concern (preparation, I'm sure...) about my imminent Greekization, but I would like to reassure you and say that I chose the name "Obelix" not because of proximity to the Celtic cult, but because I am a fan of the comic books "Asterix" (Obelix He is the best friend of Asterix, the hero of the comics...) which was illustrated by Albert Oderzo, a complete gentile, but written by Rene Gossini, a good Jew, descendant of a well-known rabbi in Europe if my memory serves me correctly...
Regarding our case: I do not intend to enter into a debate on the subject of religion and I already mentioned this in my first response to Michael.
All my criticism towards Michael and the "cool commenter" is not related to our differences even though there are indeed some.
My criticism is towards the way they react.
Even if you decide to get into arguments about religion and I have already expressed my opinion on this matter, you can still maintain politeness and courtesy.
In case you still don't understand what I mean, I will quote from the responses of Michael and the "cool commenter":
"I also planted in your memory the memory of reading the article and the desire to respond to it as you responded (which aligns with the false memory I planted in your mind about that idiot who told you this nonsense).
You are actually saying the same thing about the world, only that your stupid memory can be erased if you just take a strong blow to the head and all the fossils in the belly of the earth such a blow will not even tickle" - Michael.
Things like "idiot" and "your stupid memory" are unnecessary and could have been omitted without harming the content of the response (and maybe also without harming other people...)
"This religious is not worth considering..
Michael, Roy, I really don't understand where you have so much strength to correct and explain to the religious.
I also once thought that if I explained enough with logic and simplicity then religious people would abandon their unnecessary beliefs.. " - the sneaky commenter.
Beyond the fact that the cool commenter takes upon himself the privilege of deciding which beliefs are unnecessary and which are not,
He is making a gross generalization here. There are religious people who need correction and explanation just as there are secular people, and this is not necessarily related to their religiosity or secularism. Not all religious people need correction and explanation, but this specific human being also happens to be religious.
Also, instead of writing "this religious person is not worth considering.." you could write "this person is not worth considering.."
I hope I have made myself clear.
Best regards,
Oblix (friend of Asterix, remember?).
Correcting a mistake, CEL conclusions and not dangers
Sorry.
Lesbadramish Yehuda
Doubting the dangers of the article - and that in itself - is perfectly fine. But your argumentation, the reasoning, is puzzling. Is it because the weight of the found bone is only a few grams that the discovery is from the scientific laboratory?
Above what weight, in your opinion, does the discovery have a proper scientific value. According to this logic, the scientific value of bacteria is only marginal not to mention viruses whose scientific importance is negligible. The chairs for the study of elementary particles in the Faculty of Physics can be closed. The departments for nanotechnology do not need to be opened at all.
Electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos Rahmana Litzlan, strings - may God have mercy. Quantum computers - information in my books.
On second thought, maybe you're actually right? Fact, in the market the price is according to weight. There is probably something in your words, the only question is - what weight should be given to them? Big or Small ? So we started with a (small) weight - and we will also finish with a (tiny) weight.
For an obelisk:
Another detail about the history of this site.
Think about the internal logic of your claim towards me.
You claim that I attack all religious people. How, in your opinion, do I find out who is religious and who is not? Is it as a result of the confession of a person who does this regardless of the discussion or is it as a result of the fact that he is trying to mobilize religion against science (even though in your opinion there is no contradiction)?
You are also welcome to go back and read my comments and see that even when a person who has already become clear to me is religious as a result of nonsense he said in previous comments, comes back and expresses himself on the website but responds matter-of-factly, I do not take into account my knowledge of his religiosity and I treat his words according to their content.
I take the liberty of quoting the well-known proverb "Hafosl - Bomo Fosl"
For an obelisk:
On re-reading, I think I read some of your words in my mind's eye.
You did speak about the world and not about God but everything else remains true.
For an obelisk:
As in all other discussions, here too the ones who bring religion into the story are you and other religious people.
Israel put forward stupid arguments that indeed originated in religion, but I did not refer to religion at all and only killed the arguments on their merits.
The fact that there is a religious dispute between you and Israel should not interest me, but if I have already been asked (by you) about this issue, I must say that in my opinion, in this dispute, Israel is right. He never made the claim that God has only existed for 6000 years, which you are trying to refute, but the claim that the world we live in has only existed for such a period of time (which makes sense, since we must also remember that the article does not discuss the discovery of a fossil of God, but the discovery of a fossil of a rabbit). When I read the Torah I find that this is exactly what is written in it, as it is written in it that the world was created in six days.
In general, as soon as religion makes an incorrect claim about the real world, it is at odds with science.
It is at odds with science even as it requires people to accept true claims about the world without examination.
You have the right to interpret the religion as you wish, and as I have stated many times in the debates the religious have dragged me into, I have nothing and nothing against the faith of those who do not try to impose their faith and lifestyle on others. Such beliefs are not religions at all in my view, since it is not for nothing that the word "religion" in Hebrew is the same as the word "law".
I suppose that since you did not understand my words in other responses, you may also see these words as my attack on religion, but I repeat that this is merely a defense against religion's attack on me.
in SDM
I'm sorry Mr. Obelisk, but I searched all of Michael's comments and did not see that he attacks all religious people.
Your attitude is unfair.
And for our purposes, when in one of my incarnations I thought about repentance, it passed me by very quickly for many reasons, one of which is: - It is impossible to ignore intersecting proofs about the existence of the world for billions of years and not only for periods of only a few thousand years.
So, you may be able to live with this contradiction, and ignore it for reasons that are kept with you, but, it is a contradiction!, and even a serious one.
I even respect your wish, but Michael, me, and others have other wishes.
You just have to protect yourself from Greekism, God forbid!, your very choice of the name "Obelisk" which is a Gentile monument, and maybe even a statue, mercifully shows that you are on a wrong path, God forbid.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum . The initials at the top of my response are simply in a fairly scientific way. (with the help of science)
The same goes for No. 6 "the cool responder".
I ask not to make generalizations.
BSD
Hello Michael,
I don't intend to get into this kind of debate, but there is not necessarily a contradiction between science and religion (note the word "necessarily"!)
I am a religious person and I do not believe that the world has only existed for "five thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight years" as Israel claimed. What's more, I'm not the only one, there are other religious people who are also great scientists and don't see any contradiction between each other.
But whether there is a contradiction or not, I do not understand your strange urge to try and bash all religious people wherever they are (and if I am not mistaken this is not the first time I have seen you do this). I will add and say that in my opinion it is pointless to enter into infantile debates on issues such as these. What do you care what Israel says?!? Man, man shall live by his faith...
But if nevertheless your impulse is too strong and you are unable to hold back and avoid pointless arguments, it would be nice if you argued a little less aggressively, and behaved a little more civilized.
Best regards,
Oblix.
the cool,
Either that, or analyze the first-order basket functions of the release from my nanofibers.
Everyone and their little sins...
To the cool commenter:
I am not trying to convince (your people) Israel.
Just tell him a little about his father's house.
It's important that he knows something about his roots, isn't it?
This religious is not worth considering..
Michael, Roy, I really don't understand where you have so much strength to correct and explain to the religious.
I also once thought that if I explained enough with logic and simplicity then religious people would abandon their unnecessary beliefs..
it does not help..
People hear things and adhere even when they hear contradictions in them.
It's a waste of your time guys
Regarding the article, there is nothing new, but a confirmation of the roots of the rabbits and hamsters.
Israel:
You don't know what you are talking about.
In fact I personally created you a second before you responded to the article.
In doing so I also created your family and planted in your mind and the minds of all the people you know a false memory as if you had met before.
I also implanted in your memory the memory of reading the article and the desire to respond to it as you responded (which aligns with the false memory I implanted in your mind about that idiot who told you this nonsense).
You are actually saying the same thing about the world only your stupid memory can be erased if you just take a hard blow to the head and all the fossils in the belly of the earth such a blow won't even tickle
Israel,
Where are the confessions from?
lie lies,
The world has not existed for more than five thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight years, and no scientist (with all due respect to them) can reverse the truth with any mathematical calculation (that with the discovery of a slight mistake the whole pyramid falls!). It's like telling someone who is twenty years old that he is really twenty thousand years old. Our number is from the beginning of the creation of the world until now, and this is the reality, and science cannot deny the reality.
Correct: all the samples that were discovered... etc.
An ankle and foot of a creature weighing less than a hundred grams was discovered in coal deposits.
All the dochamit that was discovered probably weighs only a few grams.
Let me be a little skeptical about the strong conclusions in the article.
Sabdarmish Yehuda