He declined to comment on his views on evolution in a newspaper interview on Tuesday. He later clarified that he believed in evolution, but spouted nonsense when he tried to describe how it works
The Canadian Science Minister has decided to stop public discussion about his views on evolution. The minister responsible for science and technology, Gary Goodyear caused a stir when he refused to tell a Canadian newspaper whether he believed in the science of evolution. In an interview published Tuesday, Goodyear declined to say whether he believed in evolution, adding that he was a Christian and that questions about his religion were inappropriate. Goodyear said that he refused to answer the Globe newspaper's questions because it was "irrelevant" and his beliefs had nothing to do with government policy. He emphasized that he believes in evolution.
The spokesman for the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, said in response that creationism is not part of the federal agenda. Goodyear has come under heavy criticism after budget cuts left researchers across the country scrambling to find funds to continue their experiments.
However, Goodyear's clarification did not reduce the scientists' concerns. The Canadian Broadcasting Authority, CBC quotes John Small, a professor of biology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, as saying that he was relieved by the minister's announcement on television that he believed in evolution, but he also told in the same interview about details of his experience as a chiropractor.
Yesterday, on Wednesday, he spoke at a conference of the Economic Club of Toronto, Goodyear spoke about government incentives and the funding of science and technology, however at this conference he refused to clarify further and insisted that his personal opinions are not important.
While Small is relieved by the clarification of Goodyear's beliefs, he disagrees with Goodyear's insistence that the question is irrelevant. "Obviously this is relevant. A science minister must know how to evaluate science just as a finance minister must know how to evaluate information that came from people dealing with finance," said Small.
"I believe that this demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how evolution works, says Elizabeth Ell, professor of biology at Fraser University, who said that it is good to hear the minister's views on the theory of evolution, but she is concerned about the examples he gave, when he said that man evolves to adapt to his environment," Just like he wears sandals in the summer and boots in the winter" this shows that he does not understand how the evolution of natural selection works" she added.
For the full news on the CBC website
And we have our own evolution denier - Menachem Ben
To the exhibition site (image source)
89 תגובות
When this rabbi's son comes home and tells him "today we learned at school that man is the son of the monkey"
The rabbi answers him "Maybe you but not me".
I do not understand
Why did you have to mention Menachem Ben?
I'm a 17 year old boy and I can say he's really stupid
I got to watch a few segments of the show he participated in
He's just an idiot and he doesn't deserve to be mentioned
Man believes in God
exiled from his country,
If I understood correctly, your main argument against evolution is:
"To the best of my knowledge, as of today, there is no evidence of the creation of new species, certainly not among reptiles, birds and mammals."
I'm sure you'll agree with me that the dating of the remains of different species of animals unequivocally proves that not all of them were created at the same time, but new species were created in different periods of the years of the earth's existence.
As mentioned, there is conclusive evidence for this, and it already overthrows the "classical" intelligent creation, that is, the one that believes that the Almighty God created all animals in the six days of creation and since then no new species have been created.
I assume you meant to make the argument in a slightly different way, that is to say that there is no proof that ** evolution ** created new species.
This argument, against evolution, was much stronger before the molecular basis of life was discovered. The discovery of the DNA in particular, and the chemistry of the mechanisms of inheritance, and the mechanisms of mutations in particular, makes it possible to map the true kinship between animals.
It is possible to clearly see the diversity that develops between the types of animals, quantify it in a scientific way, and hence reach a logical conclusion that new species were indeed created by pure evolutionary mechanisms.
You could argue that no one has seen this happen yet, but to me that is a weak and unconvincing argument.
I don't need to give a specific example of the formation of new species. New species were created and are still being created, and today, with the help of the extensive knowledge of the molecular structure of heredity, it is also possible to show the road map of their formation.
Of course, intelligent design can refine its arguments and claim that the new species that have been created over the ages were created by the Almighty God, who for some reason felt like continuing to create them - you already agreed with me that this cannot be considered a scientific theory.
pleasantness
I would be happy (and I am certainly not cynical) if you would wait for me and point out which evidence I am ignoring. Michael, despite his self-inflation, at least tried to back up his words with scientific evidence. The problem was that unfortunately they showed that even what I previously thought was a given (change of species among the flies) does not meet the test of the modern definition of a separate species (placing a fully fertile offspring).
Honorable gentlemen
The brain is not a muscle, as was thought in the past, and therefore men do not have a physical advantage over women due to their evolutionary muscularity!
But they can definitely dance longer in front of the women!
As our ancestors did hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Until the monotheistic religion that denies sexuality and sex came and stopped it.
Dancing around the tribal campfire is built into us humans.
Leave the keyboard and go out to connect with nature and yourself, and who knows maybe you will also connect with new partners, and maybe not, but maybe you will get the token that life is not an insurance company.
Tonight - Saturday, April 15, at the Barbie club in Tel Aviv at 2200 I will connect with my inner nature and dance until I'm dead to music from Australia, and I won't think about Einstein or the nonsense of religion and science explanations.
Maybe you will come as well?
To my father
According to an atomic-dependent clock - and according to Einstein, everything is relative - time stops in evolution when it is
Need to explain the evolution of the dinosaurs until Darwin...
If so, ask him what time it is.
to an exile from his country
You burst into an open door pouring out confirmation and refutation of scientific theories.
At the same time, it is clear that if one clear day some superior force appears and changes, even temporarily, the laws of nature, for all to see, this will have far-reaching consequences for scientific research.
I have a feeling that, although we use similar words, I believe that the theory of evolution is much, much more grounded than you think.
No big deal, disagreements are part of scientific research.
To my father
This is the first prototype of life, the cell - which consists of letters - in this case the atoms
For their types - according to me there was an author to this cipher whose name at this time was x-"watchman who can see" sets things faster"!
Sheika, where did you get the fact that evolution mixes random letters in every generation?
Evolution tends to maintain the existing, and the changes from generation to generation are very small.
To Michael
The thought that life started somewhere else is normal - don't worry - many scientists have come across it
In contempt - and the last one discovers the Alcus germ which luckily also won the Nobel Prize!
I could not trust a mind - a mind - that was created by chance like evolution - for example a machine
that mixes block letters randomly and the result is a serious article about the origin of life. There are other options for the origin of life!
We are pleased
A scientific theory is not a theory that can be proven but a theory that can be disproved. In the Middle Ages, priests spent time building complex theories about the structure of the heavens. Some angels sit on the right side of God, some on the left and some even stand. These theories can also be confirmed because it is possible that God will decide to reveal the heavenly hierarchy to us and reveal how many angels there are. Even so, the heavenly hierarchy is not a scientific theory because no experiment in the world can disprove it just as no experiment in the world can disprove the existence of God. If we accept your argument that a scientific theory is a theory that can be confirmed, then surely rational planning should be taught in science classes (because it is possible that God will come one day and decide to conduct a demonstration on the issue of changing animals from one species to another).
This is exactly the watershed between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory. A scientific theory can be examined even without the need for God's intervention, therefore the existence of God is not a scientific question.
Regarding the comparison between evolution and skipping letters in the Bible. I am not comparing the two and it is absolutely clear to me that evolution has much more support than skipping letters. My comparison was between the claim that evolution is practically proven and skipping letters. In both cases there is an exploitation of the reader's lack of knowledge The average in order to claim that there is scientific proof when there is none. In both cases it is a false maxim that is intended to convince the listener of the rightness of your ways. I have a hard time deciding who commits a greater offense, the one who tries to convince of the existence of a moral god by immoral means or the one who tries to convince of the rightness Science claims scientific proofs that do not exist.
Nice!
Invalidating own imperfection invalidates.
Part of the diagnosis of ignorance - a person who thinks he knows everything.
the exile from his country,
To be honest, I agree with a lot of what you said. No. Comments:
1) For the avoidance of doubt, I certainly do not think that intelligent design should be taught in science classes - there is simply nothing to teach about it and it is not a scientific theory.
2) The question of whether God exists is precisely a scientific question. If there is some force that can work miracles, that is, change the existing laws of physics, even temporarily, it is surely a first-rate scientific matter. In this case, it may not be possible to disprove the existence of God easily, but it can be proven very easily: it is enough for the same supreme power to stop, for example, the sun in the sky for a number of hours, and immediately the number of those who return to repentance will increase dramatically.
3) I did not claim that confirmations of evolution push intelligent design into a corner, but I claimed that religious people are constantly looking for gaps in scientific theories, and any gap found is immediately considered proof of God's existence. In this situation, as the gaps in scientific theories close (and not only in evolution), there is less room for needing an almighty God to explain natural phenomena.
The difference is subtle: I am aware that even if all phenomena are perfectly explained by science, there will still be those who would prefer to believe in God, without the need for any substantiation.
3) The theory of evolution perfectly explains the origin of life. The fact that there are still phenomena that it does not explain 100% does not detract from its value, and there is no other theory that even comes close to its achievements.
To compare the achievements of the evolution theory to skipping letters in the Bible is already a wild exaggeration (among us, even complete nonsense).
pleasantness
Your wish is my command
Should intelligent planning be taught in science classes?
In my opinion, the main mistake that is made in the debate between evolution and intelligent design is the attempt by the followers of evolution (like Oren, a little like you, but by no means like Michael, who is never wrong) to claim that there is no need to teach intelligent design because evolution is such a wonderful theory, just for the sake of it. Scientific caution we claim is unproven. These arguments expose evolution to arguments of the "argument" type with Oren, who detail the evidence for the theories of evolution to the level of an argument about the fruit fly. Since we both agree that evolution has a long way to go before it reaches the level of "almost proven", such a discussion may lead to the conclusion that intelligent design can be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution.
The argument against intelligent design should be much simpler - intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Karl Popper defined a scientific theory at the time as a theory that can be refuted. The rational design does not meet this condition. Just as the question of whether God exists is not a scientific question, the question of rational planning is also not a scientific question because it cannot be disproved. Let's assume that at some point we will find out that indeed new species are created spontaneously and moreover we will also find out that unicellular creatures turn into multicellular creatures under certain conditions. Will it then be possible to prove that the rational planning is not correct? The answer is of course no. Some supporters of intelligent design will argue that my Lord created the system so that complex creatures would gain an advantage so that He could give them the divine spark. Another part will look at you in abysmal wonder and explain to you that everything was done with God's help, therefore if a single-celled creature became a multi-celled creature, then it was done by God's grace and there is nothing between it and natural selection.
Therefore, the sentence with which I agreed with most of all in your response is that rational design can explain anything therefore it cannot explain anything. The most problematic statement was that the more we prove larger and larger parts of evolution, the more we push intelligent design into a corner, because once again it presents two theories as competing theories when there is no competition between them. One is a scientific theory which can be disproved while the other is related to a person's belief system. Affirming evolution will not cause the proponent of intelligent design to abandon his faith any more than disproving evolution will cause you to believe in God.
The sad thing is that in the framework of this discussion, some supporters of evolution present an incorrect picture of the situation as if the theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt and people must accept its correctness in the same way as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. The presentation of this false maxim is not fundamentally different from the arguments of skipping every fourth letter in the Book of Shemots and it is a shame that this site encourages it.
Dawn:
No one said you had weird or different theories about auras. I was just asking if you still see them.
I assume you understand that this claim of yours can be tested.
I still don't understand why you're not going to collect a million dollars from Randy but when I get back from Portugal I might try to organize the sane people here and test your ability.
What do you think?
I hope you understand that avoiding a serious examination of the matter will indicate that it is not a hallucination but a lie.
Hugin (68):
Apparently the speed of correspondence here does not allow you to understand it.
I have always expressed the opinion that intelligent creation is possible here. See, for example, here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-1002094/#comment-172196
And this is not the first time. This is just an example.
As mentioned - the fact that it is possible to create an intelligent creature does not indicate that it happened. In general - you should know that not everything possible happens. I assume you know that the Iranians can attack Israel with an army equipped with only rotten tomatoes. It's really possible.
I can assure you that it did not happen and will not happen.
Hugin (70):
That's why most people eat beans and besides $%%^*%&*^*)^
Hugin,
I'm trying to understand:
In your opinion, the gust of wind is "not without reason", that is, with reason?
In what sense, how do you see that?
Same for a compass?
Can you expand on the "creative creation process"?
Explain who created the Creator?
Dawn,
I recommend you go to an ophthalmologist, and a neurologist, it seems you have a problem with the "filters", your eyes transmit too much noise.
I'm sorry you don't understand my style of speaking.
I'm sorry that because of this you are making theories about what I meant to say.
By the way, I never claimed to have strange theories about auras...I simply stated that I was able to notice them, yes, even in the dark, yes, even with my eyes closed.
When a person lives in a reality that is completely different from what they are trying to convince him exists, all the various "scientific" explanations will not help, I don't buy it.
Adam and every creature without a 'spirit' does not create and does not create and does not think and there is nothing!! And there was nothing..
What is a compass, what is the north wind, what are the four directions, what is the cycle and spontaneous natural movement of wind and more, all of these, even if random, are not random at all and are not devoid of wisdom and meaning: everything must be learned and there is no day, moment, second, or fall that has no connection between all
Hugin, indeed as Michael writes, today there is an intelligent being that develops the ability to create life, they call him man, more precisely biotechnology scientists. But you also build God in their image and likeness.
No one believes that life was created, it was created randomly and evolved afterwards. Today, one of the billions of creatures has developed scientific abilities. It can only give us an indication of the present and implications for the future and not the past.
Just pay attention to the fact that you are actually slowly reaching your own internal conclusions that there is also a "reasonableness and possibility" for a creative creation process somewhere in one of the time cycles, whatever they are in the distant defined or undefined past that may already be included in the "bigger" part of the evolutionary principle of Darwin and others. (no matter what we call it at the moment).
Shika:
These puzzles have been solved.
There are those who do not recognize this, but it really does not matter.
Intelligent planning by an intelligent being (which is, obviously, alive) cannot be an explanation for the existence of life. Is there anything clear about this?
The watchmaker can be blind - and I know there are also poor watchmakers who are not blind - in this situation everyone is right
And these riddles might be solved by looking at the internet.
I wonder if the scientists had called the genome by a nickname like "the genetic smear" instead of "the genetic code", then how would Sheika translate it?
It was equally possible to call it a "genetic fart", would that mean that God farted the genome?
It reminds me of the time when Hagin tried to give a heavenly and spiritual spread of the North in the names of the planets in the solar system, only she didn't notice that sometimes she chose to take the Hebrew name and sometimes the foreign name. Or she did notice, only that she chose the way it would be more suitable for the retiree who pleased her at that moment.
By the way Sheika:
If your thoughts are based on such silly puns then maybe you think there is also someone who encrypted the north?
Shika:
Indeed, this is the line of thought I would expect from someone who thinks that all of this has to do with pine glue in underwear.
I have written here many times that scientists are the last to deny the ability of an intelligent being to create life.
After all, they themselves strive for this constantly and those who think that this is the debate simply do not understand anything.
The debate is not about the question of whether it is possible but about the following two questions:
1. Is this what really happened on Earth
2. Is this an explanation for the formation of life
To these two questions the sane answer in the negative.
Shika The fact that man can interfere with nature does not contradict evolution. It's just another means of spreading it. Evolution is the cumulative change in the population of living things. This change can accumulate as a result of selection pressures, genetic drift, or any other means. What is beautiful about evolution is that Darwin could conceive it without knowing what the mechanism is or what the mechanisms are if there are some that transmit heredity. Only the final result matters. Therefore, even genetic engineering, which creates living beings that could not have been created in a natural way but over the course of many generations, only accelerates a process and changes its natural course. In the end it doesn't matter. What is important for any creature is its ability to adapt.
without understanding
If there is a genetic code - then there is a coder - the letters in the code are made of atoms - and today it can be found in
The technology to transplant, for example, from one creature to another, a biological substance that glows in the dark, for example, the firefly - after a technological mental intervention - will continue to glow for the next generations of the same
A creature that will choose - this will not happen in evolution - and with a little understanding you will understand that it is possible to create
Living in another way like technology, and more.
Just to confirm the findings so far means I didn't understand either.
It seems to me that Shayka also did not understand so that until now there are four who did not understand and no one did.
Pine,
A big stone is uncovered over my heart. I was afraid for a moment that I was the only one who didn't understand Sheika...
I'm relatively new here, what is this thing?
sheika,
Oh thank you? As before I don't understand you, but I will choose to see it as a compliment 🙂
To pine
And pine glue permeates the underwear...-don't forget to zoom in with the microscope.
Indeed, there is a similarity, but Shayka is another creation who sometimes responds here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-still-in-danger-0202097/#comment-167710
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-our-universe-ruled-by-artificial-intelligence-150508/#comment-188167
https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-cursed-by-ben-060408/#comment-193990
https://www.hayadan.org.il/scientists-still-wary-after-science-minister-confirms-belief-in-evolution-1903099/#comment-199826
And God created Sheikhougin...
The magnetic machine at the Weizmann Institute
- mri gave a clear possibility of reading minds and man was not created in the image of God
The machine - wants to say that the man and the machine are one - that is, we are nothing more than a possible toy
built by x at a higher level than your computer Darwin never claimed to know
The origins of life are only partial stages in their development.
Dawn,
Your opening question, and I'm sorry I don't have a nicer way to say it, is just silly.
A scientist is any person who uses the scientific method to investigate and deepen his knowledge.
Einstein disagreed with Newton, and this of course did not deprive him, nor Newton, of the title of scientist.
There can be competing scientific theories of evolution, and there is no problem with that.
Adherence to the scientific method guarantees that most of the time it will be possible to decide between competing scientific theories.
The problem is if strange theories such as strange auras (delusions?) that only one person can see, that cannot be photographed, that apart from stories have no basis in reality.
The problem is if theories such as creationism, which do not explain anything and cannot be confirmed and verified in any way whatsoever.
exiled from his country,
You wrote three long articles in a row, eloquent and interesting, in all of them you focused on one or another shortcomings of the theory of evolution.
Even the most distinct followers of the evolution theory agree that not everything is explained by it, and there is still a long way to go.
The strange thing is that any matter that is not adequately explained by evolution, immediately becomes an impressive achievement of the creationists.
It's not just weird, it's a basic logical fallacy.
I would like, with your permission, and perhaps with your help, to analyze the shortcomings of creationism as well.
So what do we have in creationism?
Well, this is a deep and impressive theory: everything that exists on the face of the earth was created by the Almighty God. Short, concise and effective. Really?
Who is this and what is the Almighty God?
no one knows
How does he do what he does?
no one knows
Why does he do what he does?
no one knows
Is it possible, based on the creationist theory, to predict one or another development?
After all, God's ways are wonderful.
You have to admit, God Almighty solves every problem...
Well, it's time to shout: the king is naked
To say "Man was created by God" means to say "I have not the faintest idea how man was created, and I have no need to research it either"
The creationist theory can explain anything, therefore nothing!
The theory of creation is stagnant by nature, it will not evolve or develop anything.
Almost every advance in science and human knowledge began with a challenge by thinking people, to the various religious explanations.
The theory of evolution, with all the gaps that comes, is infinitely better. The gaps that come are getting filled, thus leaving less and less room for the useless use of the Almighty God.
When investing so much effort in tattooing the theory of evolution, it is also worthwhile, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to invest efforts in finding the huge shortcomings of creationism.
You know, the exile from his country, even just for the sake of objectivity
By the way, Shahar:
Do you still see halos?
You still haven't answered the question if you hallucinate them in the dark as well.
You also did not answer the question why you are not going to get a million dollars for demonstrating your ability.
Dawn:
It turns out that you are the type of person who, even if it is explained to them a thousand times that science only has theories - will still wave at evolution on the grounds that it is only a theory.
Even the thousands of verifications that exist for this theory will not convince you as well as the fact that it is bound by reality mathematically as soon as certain assumptions are met and that those assumptions which are the easiest to test are indeed met.
You will always continue to fight it and the only reason for this is your unwillingness to give up the freedom to assert claims in ignorance.
The "problems" you present and for the purpose of "solving" them you present an alternative model do not exist at all in reality and you invent them only for the sake of contrast. This is not the behavior of an honest person, but we already know you and know that this is your typical behavior.
To be called a "scientist" all you need is for someone to call you a "scientist". I assume that you, for example, will have no trouble calling yourself a "scientist" and so you will be called a "scientist" by at least one person.
I, on the other hand, will continue to know that you don't even have a clue about everything involved in science.
The question is this... in 2009, can a scientist be called a scientist even if he does not believe in Darwin's evolution?
Can a person be a minister of science if he does not believe in the popular concept?
The theory of evolution, as of today, is still a theory.
Want a new theory?
Evolution occurs at a self-accelerating pace, so past processes that took years today take much less time.
Otherwise, how do you explain the extreme difference that exists today on Earth between different "breeds" of humans? Genetic difference, disease resistance, skull structure, color and much more.
It is not possible for humans to disperse over the globe and change their skin within 150 thousand years if the evolution processes take millions of years.
Another theory is that there is more than one "ancestor" and different species of humans evolved from different species of animals.
The "proofs" given today for the theory of evolution seek to strengthen the claim of origin, when in fact additional claims and additional theories can arise that would claim a different order and researchers would be forced to look for new proofs.
The exile from his country:
Did I say you won't wait?
I said!
Again I learned so much from your witty response but I still have a few questions due to my limited mental capacity compared to your wit. Allow me (with courage and trembling) to quote some of your Shafer articles and raise a number of questions.
"I can't believe that you will wait for my words even when you enter the website, in my opinion you are vaccinated"
The truth, Michael, I was really hurt here. I will not be able to bear witness to your words. After all, our starting point is that you are always right, how can I not wait for your words? And the wisdom was full, but what was said about the conquering modesty?
"For your information - there is no need for me to prove that there isn't some sun out there that deflected the mutations from their course, just as there is no need for me to prove the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. You claim the existence of such a monster? You prove its existence!"
Once again you managed to miss. The "sun" or the flying spaghetti monster is the religious belief that man is more than an improved fly. This is exactly what you need to prove. You, Michael, not me, because you come to this debate in the name of science. The fact that you were able to prove changes among a fly (you didn't really succeed) has nothing to do with the religious man's transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. You assume in the name of evolution that there is no difference between the two and then use that to prove your point. Amazingly scientific!!
Regarding fossils - where exactly is the proof that the changes they called natural?
"You are simply making the impossible demand that they show you that a process that takes hundreds of millions of years will take place in the blink of an eye. Have you tried working as a stand-up comedian?"
As soon as I finished reading your witty words I wanted to run and quit my job and move to the career you offered me. What is more noble than an existence where you make other people happy and also make money. Unfortunately my wife managed to convince me that during such a severe recession it is better for me to keep my job. That's why I went out again to examine my words and to my surprise I discovered that it was neither sexual nor partial. Actually what I wrote is:
"...on the other hand, the wolf experiment should at least light a warning light among the supporters of evolution. The counter-argument that not enough time has passed to draw conclusions from this experiment is certainly acceptable to me. But if we return to Earth in two million years and we still have not observed the development of new species among mammals Will you still claim that evolution is "almost proven"?
Indeed a demand for two million years is a demand in the blink of an eye. In short, Michael, you twisted my words and then attacked me for these things. Your place, Michael Yaa, is among Ynet's talkbacks and not on a scientific site.
And now for evidence for evolution
The article - you didn't really read it right Michael. Come on, be a little honest. After all, it is impossible for you to publish "proof" of the development of new species among animals in an article that does exactly the opposite. I was ready to accept that new species developed among flies, but to my surprise it turned out that even these changes do not meet the test of creating a new species (the inability to produce a fully fertile offspring). Re-read the article Michael, maybe it will save some of your comments from the site
"Want some more – so you can twist some more?"
So Michael. So consumed with self-importance. Yes, Michael, I'll twist a little and hops, now it's your turn. The article is not about creating new species but about creating a subspecies of lizard. For subspecies I don't need lizards for that there are dogs. Once again did you not read the article Michael?.
If Oren has proof of evolution or does the Minister of Science have to believe in evolution?
To avoid a complex discussion on the question of fruit flies, let's assume for a moment that we have indeed located new species among fruit flies and now we will examine whether we have proof of evolution.
Oren goes on a trip to the south of the United States. While visiting the local church he hears a local priest preaching about the wonders of God creating man from ashes. Oren waits patiently until the end of the sermon and then he says to the priest, "Sir, you know that there is no need for a higher power to explain the appearance of man. We have an almost proven scientific theory that explains the appearance of man." After ten minutes of a lecture on the wonders of evolution and its confirmation, the pastor asks you:
"Let me see if I understood you correctly. You claim that you have evidence of relatively small genetic changes among animals, and hence that if we wait long enough, the changes will also become large changes and they explain the formation of man. For example, if the fruit fly needs to change 50 genes to become to another species and the process took him 100 years, then if we wait 1,000,000 years, half a million genes will change in the monkey so that he becomes a human."
"True" you answer enthusiastically "and we have a lot of evidence among fossils that this is exactly what happened"
"Do you have proof that the changes you find in the fossils occurred naturally?" the priest asks you
"No, but..." you try
"So let's put the fossils aside. We don't have an argument that changes in animals occurred, the argument is whether they occurred spontaneously."
"Now let me explain to you a little bit about my world view" continues the priest "When I look into the eyes of a child and into the eyes of a fly I see two completely different things. In the child I see a spark in the eyes which I call the divine spark (I know you don't believe that but to your beliefs There is no relevance to this story since you are in it in the name of science). I cannot define for you exactly what that divine spark is and in which animals it exists. But I can give you a minimum condition: are you supposed to be able to recognize emotions in the look of the animal's eyes. I recognize it in People, in my dog, in cats, dolphins, and of course monkeys. I don't recognize it among any fly. I believe that it is possible for life without a divine spark to evolve and change and create new species. But among animals with the divine spark it is not possible for a new species to be created by itself because The divine spark differs from animal to animal."
"I can't believe he believes in this nonsense" you say to yourself in Hebrew
"The nonsense that I believe in or not is irrelevant to our debate, Oren," the priest surprises you in fluent Hebrew, "What is important is the scientific proof of evolution. The only case I know of where we tried to change an intensively developed species, the wolf gave rise to over four hundred types of dogs, all of which are wolves."
"Well you have to understand that evolution is a slow process that lasts over millions of years" you say "it is not possible to expect that in ten thousand years we will be able to develop a new species."
"You know what, I accept this argument," the pastor surprises you, "that is, we agree that the question of evolution's ability to explain the development of new species among complex life forms cannot be examined scientifically at this point. It seems to me that the reasonable solution is that a person in his faith will live until one of us is proven wrong. You will continue to believe that man is an improved fly and I will continue to see a divine spark in the eyes of a child - give me the keys to the Volvo The Ministry of Science is here I come"
To pine
I have carefully read your article and response and now allow me to present how I see things.
The question of how the earth turned from a dead planet to a planet full of life including complex life forms (like most of the readers of this site). A follower of rational planning will claim that this is possible only by the grace of God. You claim in the name of science that this is possible without the intervention of a higher power and add and claim that you have an "almost proven" theory that explains how this happened.
First let's agree on the steps that science needs to go through in order to confirm the transition.
1. The scientist has to prove that the spontaneous development of life is possible
2. Science should show that simple life forms can evolve into complex life forms
3. Science should show that in response to environmental changes, the spontaneous development of new animal species is possible
4. Science should show that in response to environmental changes animals change their characteristics (creation of new subspecies)
Of the four steps I mentioned, the first two steps are very far from confirmation. Almost all the reinforcements for the theory of evolution are related to the fourth question. We can celebrate countless experiments showing adaptations of species to changes in the environment. We can rejoice when science discovers fish species that lose/regain their armor depending on the water clarity. We can rub our hands with delight when lizards develop stronger jaws when they migrate to another island. We can argue that the fact that we turned a wolf into a chihuahua indicates the many possible changes. However, all these in my opinion are minimal compared to the change in which her life ceases to be herself in order to survive. In fact, these changes are so complicated that, unlike changes of the fourth type, we have not yet witnessed such a change beyond completely primitive forms of life. Even the proof of the apple flies in the United States that I used to cite as part of my debates with my "Doss" friends is apparently incorrect.
According to creationists, the world was created by God in 6 days.
On the seventh day he rested.
He has since rested.
A perfect god creates only a perfect creation.
It cannot be that his work requires correction or improvement.
There is no room for correction.
According to Darwinists, the world is constantly evolving, improving, and changing.
Creationists will never be able to admit that there could be evolution.
It will remove the ground from under their feet and meet them with fear, dread, and insecurity.
Fear of what will happen now, that everything is suddenly in doubt, and what they will say about me that I "did" until now.
Horror of what will happen - from now on.
Lack of confidence that everything is suddenly unfamiliar, and it is not known whether it is or not, lack of direction, and starting from the beginning.
Both belong to different dimensions and therefore will never be able to meet.
And who said - "Can a lion attack a whale or vice versa?"
No.
Any bickering on the subject will only exhaust you, there is no growth from the combination of the two, no growth, no mutual fertilization, a waste of time.
Happy holiday
Views
For an exile from his country:
I do not believe that you will wait for my words even when you enter the site.
I think you are vaccinated.
You tried to bring stupid examples against my argument and I just showed how stupid they are while you didn't show what in evolution is similarly stupid.
Evolution has remained similar to the addition of numbers and you have not shown us any sun that you claim should prevent this.
FYI - there is no need for me to prove that there isn't some sun out there that deflected the mutations from their course just as there is no need for me to prove the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
Are you claiming the existence of such a monster? You prove its existence!
Modern man has existed for a very short time in evolutionary terms and yet managed to domesticate many plants and animals and change them beyond recognition.
You, for some reason, try to see this success as proof that evolution doesn't work.
Entertainment incarnate.
The fossil record shows us many more examples - including the terrestrial ancestors of the whales, but you have found a solution to all the problems - you are simply making the impossible demand that they show you that a process that takes hundreds of millions of years will take place in the blink of an eye.
Have you tried working as a stand-up comedian?
Want some more examples of evolution?
How many do you have:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
It is clear to me that for you it will only serve to ad hoc adjust the definition of what you define as a convincing example.
Want a little more - so you can twist more?
here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
Sweet dreams
Sorry for inserting the entire long article, beyond the link. This is done for several reasons:
1. The article pretty much explains and presents the claims that were presented today (including on the website) while giving "easy to understand" answers to all creationists who refuse to recognize the simple truth.
2. I personally connected with the spirit of the author of the article and the way in which he presented the topic. He, on the other hand, manages to present his claims with better and more successful words and phrasing.
3. Bringing a link on the website, as I learned from my short stay on the website, often leads to people - especially those who are not used to reading scientific articles and/or because of their extreme opinions against the claims and explanations presented here - to ignore reading the article in the link. By the way, this does not prevent them from "responding" to the attached article as if they had read the entire article, internalized it and still find that it does not explain the claim.
4. Often, over the years, articles (treasures?) like these "disappear" from the web pages. To reduce the chance of this, I decided to at least distribute it in another source (while giving full credit to the original article). It can be seen that even one of the articles to which a link was given in the original article, on which the article was based, is no longer accessible (unfortunately).
So to everyone who doubts the claims that I and people better than me have made in the responses to this article and other articles that produced various and different defiances, I ask - read the entire article with an open mind and be ready to accept things.
Thanks in advance,
Pine
Not a member of the board 🙂
The following article was written/translated by Shlomi Tal and taken from the website:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/acc-evo.html
All credit to those mentioned above.
"Recognize evolution
This article is not a scientific presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution; I am not qualified for that, and if you want adequate detail on the theory of evolution you should contact a biologist. I am writing here about basic principles of the theory according to what I read in the book "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin and in the book "The Blind Watchman" by Richard Dawkins, but the purpose of this article is to discuss the difficulty of the mind, the cognitive, of many people to accept the theory and eliminate this difficulty if possible.
When we look at living things, we see incredible complexity and an orderly division of roles. This complexity requires an explanation. One possible explanation is that someone designed and built the living creatures. This is a possibility. The explanation of complexity by a creator is used as the "design argument" for the existence of God: just as every clock has a watchmaker, so living creatures have a creator. This argument fits well with human logic, and there is no logical fallacy in it, except that we have found many things in living things that the argument cannot properly explain. Furthermore, it is important to understand that even if the argument is true and we have a Creator, a rather serious leap is required to say that the Creator forbade Jacob's descendants to light a fire on Shabbat. According to the happenings in the world, I would say that even if there is a creator of the world, it seems that he has been sleeping since the end of the work.
Many people do not grasp the idea of the formation of living things in a natural way. There are several reasons for this: First, scientific education, even in secular schools, is severely lacking. This is not only in Israel; Richard Dawkins laments that the principles of evolution are not taught in schools in Great Britain and the United States. A good example of the lack of scientific principles is found in the preacher Amnon Yitzchak. Let's not discuss the fact that he dismisses the theory with the words "Dervish's evolution" (after all, what can you expect from someone whose vocabulary boasts words like "yacht", "sachta", "bocht" and "kharta"...), but notice how He convinces his listeners against evolution: he claims that just as the ink spilled from the fountain at random cannot create a book of poetry, so no random changes can create living organisms in all their complexity. This claim, it should be known, is absolutely correct: chance alone cannot bring about the formation of any living being. The mistake of Amnon Yitzchak, and of the majority of his listeners, and of many people in the world, is the thought that evolution is a series of cases only. Evolution has two factors: chance (mutations, random changes in organisms) along with natural selection (selection of the good mutations, the changes that help a creature live longer). When these two factors are combined (and several other factors that are not the place to discuss them here), then it is possible for living beings to be created in all their complexity. The process is very slow by the scale of human life, but it is documented in fossils, in the DNA code, in organs that have no use in certain creatures and in many other evidences, and no serious scientist today has even a shadow of a doubt that evolution took place. The natural process of choosing the beneficial changes gave birth to the abundance of creatures that exist in our world today. One family of ape-like creatures split into two main branches: apes, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, on the one hand, and humans on the other. If so, Amnon Yitzchak's ancestors were not gorillas, but they gave birth to both the gorillas and Amnon Yitzchak (eventually).
And here, after all this quick explanation, many will argue: it doesn't make sense; Does not fit with what is familiar to us; The watchmaker's explanation sounds much more logical; Our ability to think indicates a superior thinker; And so on with those arguments of disbelief. Again, I am not killing these protests nor calling their proponents stupid. On the contrary, my heart goes out to them, since I claimed exactly the same. But one thing I say: the stolen appearance is no measure of the truth of a thing. Science never relies on preconceived notions and momentary impressions, but rather on observation and investigation. True, the eyes see that we are complex and have a division of functions like clocks and computers, but is the Creator's explanation the only one that comes into consideration? Doesn't experience warn us against judging based on impressions? The formation of living things by way of natural selection, without planning in advance, is not consistent with what we know - I agree. However, there is another thing that does not fit with what we are familiar with, with the superficial impression: the shape of the world.
They say that the shape of the world is a sphere, but I argue that this makes no sense. The eyes see, wherever we go, that the world is flat. And yes, if you fly to what is called "the other side of the ball" you will still be walking on flat ground. The land is flat both in Israel and in Australia and in the United States. If the shape of the world is a sphere, how come we don't see the curvature of the earth? And more: the meaning of a spherical world is that there are below us, on the opposite side of the sphere, people standing with their heads down. It does not make sense! How do they not fall?! After all, any object we place on top of a ball can only stand upright, and if we put it upside down it will fall. In short: the earth is flat wherever we stand, and we don't see any curve or curve in it at all, and it doesn't make sense that people stand opposite us on top of a sphere. It makes more sense to say that the world is flat.
The truth is that for most day-to-day needs we will not be bothered by a flat map of the world. Maps of Israel, for example, show a completely flat projection. The problem is that the flat world theory fails to explain certain findings. It is known, for example, that a ship named Magellan left Spain in the 16th century for the west and his ships returned to Spain with their faces in the same direction, west. How is this possible? After all, if the world is flat then Magellan's ships would fall off the edge of the world! Clearly, then, another explanation is needed. Indeed, step by step, science finds explanations for the phenomena: why did the ships return to the starting point in the same direction? Because they circled a spherical world. How do we stand on the ball? by gravity. And why, after all that, is it not very and it is impossible to notice the gradual curvature of the earth? Because the curvature of the earth is in plain sight. The curvature of the earth is only visible at a distance of thousands of kilometers. A zero curve with every step we take on the earth is added to another curve and another curve, and the total accumulation is a sphere. The wonderful from our eyes is the reality despite everything.
And now we will return to evolution. The creation theory works well until we come across findings that are inconsistent with pre-planning by an intelligent designer, let alone by a perfect God. For example, the long tibial muscle, or the plantaris muscle, which extends behind the knee almost to the heel, across the entire tibia (opposite side of the calf). The monkeys use this muscle to flex all their fingers at once, a feature useful for jumping between trees. On the other hand, in humans, the muscle is degenerated, and has no use, except to provide a living for the doctor when it tears (I'm told it hurts). If we go by the creation theory, then I understand why the wise and omniscient creator gave us a useless muscle on loan from the monkeys, for whom it is indeed useful. The most beloved monkeys to the creator more than him? But according to the theory of evolution, this finding is completely clear: the blind process of natural selection operates without prior planning, step by step, building upon building, and it is not impossible that it will leave us vestiges of the past. The same is the case with the ostriches, it is not clear why the Creator gave them wings that do not allow them to fly, but it is clear how the wings remained as a remnant of a flying animal in the past. We too, who build things by planning in advance, need evolution when we forget a certain detail. See, for example, that every computer today has a speaker that is used very little, and it does not make sense that a perfect creator (like God, so to speak) would leave it next to the sound card (which is the main source of sounds today), but that it is preserved as a relic of the past, because of a lack of thought about the future . The living creatures all testify not to planning in advance but to the growth of each structure on the basis of an existing structure.
Watching the evolution live is difficult. Like the curvature of the earth, evolution is a very gradual process, lasting millions of years. Nevertheless, there are some changes that have been documented in our time, including the formation of new strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. There are also computer simulations that show, albeit as an abstract model relative to reality, how it is possible for life to be created without prior planning. And look at Karl Sims' simulations, which show in Utah, in particular, it is worth visiting the site of the formation of virtual creatures with organ distribution without predetermination. Therefore, when the person who claims that our formation without a creator is as likely as the formation of a passenger plane from the mixing of parts in a tornado, he must be answered that the claim is not true: evolution is likened to a special tornado that selects the most suitable parts, and in this way it is possible to arrive at a sophisticated product, although not Definitely a plane. And we humans do not have any special reason for having such a shape, and that we walk on two legs, and that we have extraordinary intelligence and the ability to speak. What will you say about the birds? They are able to fly with their bodies, while we need machines for that. Man's unique understanding is the subject of much research, but we should not rush to say "God" for something we do not understand (after all, they once said about the thunder that is the wrath of God). Our intelligence does not teach about higher intelligence, just as there is no flight of birds that teaches about higher flight.
Another reason for the unwillingness to recognize evolution is of course religious belief. I will not be like those generous people who say that it is possible to reconcile the religious with the findings of science. I fully assert that evolution completely disproves religion. After all, the three theistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) speak of a God who does everything for a purpose and nothing is for nothing, while evolution is a blind process that has no purpose, but is the end in itself. And so is our life: we live in the world to live, as far as blind fate allows, and not for some purpose derived from above. Because of this, there is a strong hostility among religious people to the theory of evolution. Man is not the tiara of creation, just as the sun does not circle the earth, and the Bible is a collection of legends. There was never a man and a woman named Adam and Eve (the use of the pronoun "son of man" is fossilized, a relic from the past), but we and the apes came from a common root. insulting? I think not, but it doesn't matter, because this is the truth."
Editor's note. I usually delete such articles for copyright reasons because otherwise all YNET and NRG can be copied to talkbacks. In this particular case, the operators of the Freedom site are good friends of mine, and I get permission from them to use the materials. Avi
Two final points:
1. To my father - is it possible to edit messages?
2. Lauren and Michael - I don't think I'll get on the site until the end of next week to witness your infinite wit again (gula gula what a great pun!!). So
No Michael, I don't really think that the Big Bang theory can explain the formation of the moon. And the fact that the temperature rises as we descend into the bowels of the earth is also not lost on me. The idea was to illustrate to you that the argument that small changes necessarily lead to big changes is, to put it mildly, somewhat problematic. When the scheme of small changes requires a substantial change, it does not necessarily mean that the substantial change has indeed occurred. Therefore, Michael, the fact that a river can cut through the Earth's crust is not proof that it can cross the Earth even if we wait until the end of time. The "river" theory falls because the river has to prove that it is able to cross the mantle, which seems quite problematic on the face of it. I'll try with a simpler example:
Suppose we throw two objects at a speed of 10,000 km/h in the space between Mars and Jupiter. In 100,000 years will we reach a distance of about a light year? The answer is of course no, both objects will continue to orbit the sun because their speed is lower than the escape velocity.
Now let's go back to evolution - the theory of evolution claims that all genetic changes from the creation of the first single cell to humans are all similar and result from a process of natural selection. This assumption station is enough to show that bacteria change in response to antibiotics in order to confirm the theory.
But the opponent will claim at this stage you have shown that the two trees are indeed moving away from each other at 10,000 km/h. The problem is that you didn't see it because there is no "sun" that prevents these changes from accumulating.
The question is what is the stage we need to go through in order to be convinced that "Sun" does not exist.
In the most extreme case, someone can claim that all the changes in the living world are of no interest to him because man is not the sum of his genes but also has a "soul". This claim is not a scientific claim, therefore trying to answer it with scientific means is nonsense.
The second argument is that evolution cannot explain the development of new species among complex life forms. Of course we need to define what a complex life form is so let's assume for the purpose that it is mammals, reptiles, or birds. As far as I know, we have never noticed the development of new species among these classes. On the other hand, the experiment of the wolf should at least light a warning light among the supporters of evolution. The counter argument that not enough time has passed to draw conclusions from this experiment is certainly acceptable to me. But if we return in two million years to the earth and still do not observe the development of new species among the mammals, will you still claim that evolution is "almost proven"? Hence evolution has a long way to go before it arrives
And finally, I would be very happy if you could give me "countless" examples (you know what, even one) of changes from one species to another within complex creatures (and please not fruit flies, the apple leprosy, etc.). If you give me an example of this, then I have not wasted my time and my sincere thanks will be extended to you.
In conclusion, let me suggest that you both read the book "The Doctrine of Don Juan" about the sin of clarity. You might be able to learn something from "Mestol" too
Capricorn:
This is the fate of anyone who tries to convince me of nonsense.
Michael, the irony of "an exile from his country" is wasted on you.
Isaac:
You are probably even worse than the Jolla
The exile from his country:
Allow me to guess that the country Galit came from willingly is the land of logic.
Does your pathetic attempt to joke about the fact that many times a million can add up to a trillion stem from the fact that you don't think it's true? If this is the case - there is no point in continuing to read because you are a lost cause.
If you are aware of this fact - then what does it have to do with the matter of the "big cut" you pulled out of the straw?
You really don't know why the big cut can't work? Don't you know that basically a substance heavier than water tends to accumulate lower than water? Don't you know that the temperature rises as you go down into the bowels of the earth? How do I know the dozens of other reasons why a connection cannot be activated here?
If you know all these - there is no point in you continuing to read because you are a lost cause.
Otherwise, you are probably just a liar because while in the example you gave there are reasons why the "changes" cannot accumulate - you did not point out or even hint at such a situation in relation to the genetic changes.
Your theory 2 suffers from exactly the same failures and equally indicates that you are a lost case or a liar (I do not rule out the possibility that you belong to both groups)
Theory 3 is just silly.
She is flawed in understanding the facts, in a lack of logic, and in a strange attempt to ask why what would have happened (to your truly poor mind) if the primitive man had done a stupid thing that only you can think of as being wise does not happen (instead of drawing from the fact that it does not happen the obvious conclusion that even the primitive man was smarter than you).
After the above proofs of wisdom, you still come and lecture me about "my mistake".
Your mistake is of course that you think others don't understand that you don't understand what you are talking about.
exiled from his country,
The very fact that you wrote your nonsense shows that you did not understand the cynicism in Michael's response. You are actually just showing what Michael tried to explain to you - that conclusions without evidence and evidence or the inability to disprove something, cannot be a basis for a new theory.
The process of evolution takes place in a slow process of millions of years, and not in the range of a few documented thousands of years nor in the range of several tens of thousands of years. And this theory has plenty of supporting evidence.
But thank you because even in this short term it is possible to notice "small changes" for example between the wolf and the dog of the "pretzel" type. If you were a person meeting a wolf and a "pretzel" dog for the first time, you would not be able to tell that they are members of the same family.
One of the reasons that the changes are even "few" is because of people's anger. We have artificially brought the environment to a state of stagnation, one might say, and they are not faced with a constant need to adapt to their changing environment.
Also, if you really want to study the evidence for evolution why not do some reading. I can give you countless examples of evolution from one species to another if you want. But with you not willing to listen, but only to hear, so my words fall on deaf ears.
And precisely your example of the moon, for example, only proves that the accepted theory today, no matter how difficult it was to grasp in the past, is most likely the correct one when the evidence supports it (like the world is not flat). If you read about how they tried to prove this, you will find that even those who came up with the theory were initially skeptical of the evidence they found. One of the pieces of evidence was the running of a very accurate simulation by a scientist who did not believe in the theory but brought all the factors into play in the simulator after being requested by those who developed the theory. Imagine how surprised she was that the computer, using the simulator she developed, resulted in the creation of the moon with incredible accuracy as to how it exists today.
For an exile from his country:
The next time Michael answers you, he will not be called Michael, nor Michael R. But rather
Michael
Small changes can produce huge changes, perhaps even in the level of intelligence.
Thank you Michael for drawing my attention to the logical fallacies and lack of basic understanding.
Indeed, this quote from your scholarly answer opened up new worlds to me that until now had been closed to me due to my lack of understanding of the world:
"Do you disbelieve in the fact that by adding the number one divided by a million to itself a sufficiently large number of times it is also possible to reach a trillion? What's this chatter?"
Michael's basketball words with the help of which I completely changed my worldview regarding those around me. During the day that has passed since I read your response, I managed to develop a number of scientific theories which I am currently busy putting in writing.
Theory (1) The origin of the moon -. As you know, the currently accepted theory for the origin of the moon is that a body the size of half of Mars collided with the ancient Earth. After a thorough reading of your comment, I wonder how the astronomers did not think of the big cut theory. As we know, water is able to dig deep into the earth (see the Grand Canyon entry). Since small changes indicate that large changes are possible as well, the Big Cut Theory posits that an ancient river (can we call it Mickey in your honor?) cut the Earth until it split open and thus the Moon was formed. Stop the trains Stockholm here I come.
Theory (2) The dancing planets - as far as I know, there are slight changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Since small changes lead to big changes, there is no doubt that it is only a matter of time until the Earth changes orbits with Mars and thus we will all be saved from global warming
Theory (3) The disappearing troll - as we know, humans are getting taller due to improved nutrition. Therefore, there is no doubt that if there was an ancient people who would give the taller ones of their kind the food and the right to give birth to children, then it is only a matter of time until a person is born six meters tall. I'm a bit stuck on why their remains are not found but I'm thinking of bringing up Atlantis as a possibility.
Your mistake, Michael, is assuming the desired. You assume that the changes from the first single-celled creature to humans are all on one continuum. Therefore, the proof that genetic changes occur is enough for Eliba Michael to prove the whole theory.
Another argument could be that there may be slight changes in the genetic sequence but these changes are limited. Therefore, a situation is possible in which new species will be created among primitive life forms but not among more developed life forms. The only significant experiment to date supports this argument. For ten thousand years and more we played with the genetics of the wolves without doubt. We managed to create a Chihuahua and a Great Dane. We were able to create nervous dogs and dogs that would give up breeding in order to lead a blind man. What we have not been able to create is a bitch that will give birth to a fertile puppy that is not a wolf. Of course, a counter-argument is that not enough time has passed to create the required genetic diversity. Personally I even believe this explanation. But who exactly are you, Michael, to demand that the Minister of Science resign just because he does not share your opinion?
And finally, let me thank you again for your kind words. I am convinced that as a result of this response I will also be awarded the title of 'stole'. Therefore, in order to fulfill the duty of due disclosure, I will state that, unfortunately, my expatriate place is not Amsterdam.
The exile from his country:
The answer to your question is in short - yes!
That is, of course, in an ideal world - not in a world with a minister who claims that earthquakes are caused by a memorizing layer 🙂
There is evidence of the development of different species during evolution and such developments have even been observed.
See for example here: http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
But the funny thing is that your words are also hidden by logic and even if there was no finding in the world that contradicts them.
Don't you recognize the fact that any number of small changes can produce a huge change?
Do you disbelieve that by adding the number one divided by a million to itself a large enough number of times it is also possible to reach a trillion? what is this rant
I'm pretty sure no one has yet performed the operation of adding the following two numbers:
14188979867876455365544447644764674
And more
67876564645656536536434345785765
Does this mean that we are not allowed to claim that the result of the addition is so and so (forgive me for being lazy to add them up) without checking if really when you take apples whose number is the same as the first number together with apples whose number is the same as the second number you actually get so and so apples?
Does the fact that we did not do the experiment with the apples make our claim equivalent to the claim that if we really did the experiment we would get a flying spaghetti monster at all?
I asked the science readers
Suppose I were Canada's Minister of Science and I would claim the following:
Today there are two main hypotheses regarding evolution:
The first hypothesis (theory) that all genetic changes from the organic compound stage to the crocodile, the eagle, the whale and the human are the product of mutations and natural selection
The second hypothesis is that certain genetic changes are possible naturally but large changes are not possible.
In my opinion, since evolution deals with the development of new species, the main test is whether there is living evidence of the creation of new species.
To the best of my knowledge, as of today, there is no evidence of the creation of new species, certainly not among reptiles, birds and mammals.
Therefore, until such evidence is found, both hypotheses must be taught in schools at the same time.
Did I have to pack my bags and leave the Ministry of Science in shame?
aaa:
Science simply cannot become a religion because science does not tell people what to do.
Therefore, he cannot force anything.
If you haven't understood that yet, then you haven't understood what science is.
Why do you ask "what suddenly happened to freedom of speech and belief?"?
Did someone take them from you?
Science does not involve quite a few axioms. It involves very few axioms without which even a conversation cannot be conducted.
Assumptions and hypotheses are found in science only as a target for constant examination and refutation when possible.
Therefore - when you turn to "those who don't know" you are actually turning to yourself.
ah,
I agree with you that science must not become a "religion", and not just an extreme religion. And I say this as someone who claims to be called a scientist. But my reasons are different from yours.
As soon as the scientific method becomes something close to religion and faith, it will lose the thing it holds dear, which is scientific objectivity and the ability to doubt and reach the truth even at the cost of self-criticism. That is, if she loses all of this, she will be able to call "religion" and then truly woe betide us when that day comes, we would not want to reach this level and situation.
Everything you pretend to describe religion with is actually what religion, especially the institutionalized one, is flawed by:
- Freedom of speech and belief
- Monopoly on the creation
- Science will become a religion that imposes its opinion on humanity (this is what religion actually does, science only brought an alternative to those who are able to face the truth).
- "The science that strives to convert religion". You are confusing religion with science. Simple science reveals the truth, whoever wants to believe in it, as long as it does not hinder those who are really interested in progress to strive for that truth.
Are the different believers capable like the scientific method of criticizing its foundations? I don't think so... on the contrary, faith relies on not being criticized, and thus its very existence depends
Add:
Let's not forget that scientific proof by definition must leave room for its refutation,
Otherwise the basis is fundamentally refuted, because it cannot be refuted,
Therefore, science itself leaves room for doubt (as long as there are no "religious" zealots for science)!
The science that strives to convert religion.
What suddenly happened to freedom of expression and belief?
And for those who don't know, science also involves quite a few axioms, assumptions and hypotheses,
Those who want will believe, and those who don't won't.
No party has a monopoly on the creation!
Alas for the day when science becomes a religion imposing its opinion on humanity!
Views,
"I am a tour guide, a tourist guide, I teach Christians Christianity and Jews Judaism and to both together I explain about Islam.
And then I come home and throw up."
I liked 🙂
This is similar to a security minister who is not knowledgeable
All in all security matters, familiar to anyone?
: )
Michael, Yasu, I love you,
And your answer - "To your question about whether I see, I have to answer in the negative, and it's not surprising because you see and I'm Michael." - shockingly true.
You caught me correctly in several things because the wind really blows in all kinds of directions without being able to predict in advance.
Just for the sake of it, he sees my real name and it's not a nickname or a nickname. I'm not hiding and I have nothing to hide.
I'm not a scientist but as a man I like mental and intellectual struggles {masculine trait} when from time to time I get some intuitive exit {feminine trait}.
I am a guide, a tourist guide, I teach Christians Christianity and Jews Judaism and to both together I explain about Islam.
Then I come home and throw up.
... 🙂
Right. They are usually clear. Only the comment I responded to is closed. That's what I wanted to say.
The reactions of the seer are not closed
Views:
Since I have seen your responses in the past and they seemed less obtuse to me, I found it appropriate to point out that it seems to me that the response I was talking about does not characterize you.
I think you should pay attention to the fact that I didn't say you were weird or strange - I was only talking about the reaction.
I still think it is like that and I still think that logic only increases one's freedom and that there is nothing worthy of being called "university rules".
To your question if I see, I should answer in the negative, and it is not surprising since you see and I am Michael.
I must point out that when I saw the nickname "Seer" for the first time I expected (based on the name alone) to read answers a la Hugin (those more similar to the response I was referring to) but I have already learned that the spirit that served you when you chose the name is not usually yours.
To Michael R
Strange, strange, and stoned, you call me, eh?
I actually like your impatience, I think it adds a lot of positive volume to Idan,
I wear short clothes in this cold and the windows are open, there is no heating and the fridge does not work,
which is definitely weird,
I have bumps and cuts on my head near the third ear
which is definitely weird,
And I just got up to see if there's any more water in the bang - because I've run out of rolling papers and there's nothing left from last week's lines or from yesterday's trip, Shit, I'll check if there's any vodka left...
You see ?
to Oren -
I just had an urge to praise you and that was my exit.
It overwhelmed you with embarrassment.
I like confusion, it always allows a sudden departure to a new path, like in English - shuffel - or - reset of the thoughts, everything collides with everything.
Galileo Galilei was the only one in the world who said that the world is actually a sphere.
No one taught him that.
In all educational institutions in those days they taught that the world is flat.
He was right and they were wrong.
One against the whole world, they even threatened him with murder.
He interrupted them.
All educational institutions in those days were under the supervision of the church and the general interest, and that's where the "law" requiring students to pay for their studies was established.
There they take students/customers who have already paid, and put them on tracks like a train and give them a push, and very much hope that the above will continue to move forward on the same track and that maybe maybe, with the help of talent and cleverness, the above will continue and reach, by the power of its own momentum and engine, to places it has yet to reach No "train" has arrived in the past and thus news will be discovered.
They send hundreds of thousands all the time, but only a few reach anywhere significant.
Everyone else is afraid to leave the vicinity of the street lamp.
And I mean that the learner, full of fear and slight fear, will stand under the street lamp that illuminates the crossroads of the general interest,
but will embark on a new path.
Dark.
away from the safety of the "street lamp", where everyone gathers.
But with strength, fiercely, confidently and without an anchor, he will illuminate his new path, with his own light.
For at least 2 full minutes I sat in front of the text and really considered whether to delete "cheap addict" or not, if they would understand what I meant, and I see that it received, as expected, a satanic criticism from - 'Michael R.' , then the beggar solves with incredible ease and the king says "Don't sell cheap" and meant to say that when I ask you about the interpretation of the obscure conversation we had don't forget to charge a high price to explain, while I meant you to sell cheap, don't shrink and don't be afraid but pour your thoughts on the screen as long as you can, And note, even from the majority of the judges, Michael R., you received support, hidden and modest, but for all that, he wrote - "Well done, Oren." And believe me, it's really a lot from him.
Well done, Oren.
The truth is that Roa's words seemed rather strange to me, but I didn't want to take the compliment away from you.
It's really not clear to me how he thinks people are limited by logic and why he reads university laws (except the law requiring students to pay for their studies).
I also find the expression "write more, and sell cheaply" strange, and in general - the whole comment looks as if it was written under the inspiration of some drug.
Again the anonymous user from earlier was me.
I occasionally forget to enter the name after I switch computers or clear the temporary files on the computer.
Sorry in advance for the following cases as well 🙂
Views,
Thanks… I think…
I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not. On the one hand, I feel that there is a compliment in your response, on the other hand, I am afraid to accept your feeling that "I have the possibility of discovering the laws of nature according to intuition" as a positive thing, if true. I always try when I express or accept scientific opinions and theories to be objective and reach conclusions in a logical manner and not to be influenced by personal feelings or desires. This is the very science.
If I started to let my feelings and beliefs influence me in accepting conclusions and theories then I would lose what I feel is the required "scientific objectivity".
Also the ending in "cheap addict" gives me a connotation of "psychology in a shekel" etc.
In any case, if it's because of personal ego or something else, I'll make it easy on myself and accept your words as a compliment 🙂
Pine -
Your answer is beautiful, matter-of-fact and deep, your decisive firmness, aware of the meaning of outbursts of pen and mouth in the unaware, point in my opinion to the existence of a high-quality and rare possibility of human growth and flourishing, which accepts science as a "process of discovering universal laws of nature".
Unlike many good people who are limited by reason and university rules.
It gives me the impression that you have the possibility of discovering the laws of nature according to intuition, and also... the possibility of skipping to step 3 directly from -1 without going through -2
Write more, and sell cheap.
Link to the article (and to be precise: the newspaper is called 'Globe and Mail'):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090318.GOODYEAR18/TPStory/
A. Ben-Ner:
I don't think anyone should take an example from what is happening in our deteriorating education system.
Instead of saying - "It's not bad - it's like that with us too" you should say "You better be very careful! Look where it got us!"
I am of the opinion, my friend, because even with us, the ministers of religious education
For their generations, being religious and believing in the creation story, Noah's Ark, etc., etc., they did not really believe in the theory of evolution. And in general, the Minister of Science, there is no necessity that he himself has opinions on scientific issues. It is enough if he is a good manager and liberal in character. (in his character and not precisely in his socio-economic worldview).
The minister should be fired immediately and immediately, otherwise his views that are 100% wrong will surely spread to the Western countries, even so Shas will be happy to censor scientific websites that talk about evolution (like this website for example...)
Bar Yohai. Faith is related to a religious matter that cannot be found
Have a refutation or support. Evolution is not a religion, but a theory
Scientific that has its own references (even if they are not perfect),
Different from Islam and Christianity for example, who believe in each
What is it, they can add and argue about their righteousness - until the coming of the Messiah
Let him decide which of them is right, if at all (assuming he does come).
Yes, I forgot Menachem Ben.
Why go so far, Yaani, "our Muslim cousins", what about our Jewish brothers and just your people?
Leave the faith to our undeveloped Muslim cousins
Bar Yochai,
Do not lower the level of evolution to the same level of "faith". It's a theory, and as a scientific theory it means that it has evidence, support and proof.
You deliberately referred to evolution in your response with the word "faith" in the hope of lowering its credibility. The very fact that you did this shows that inside you are aware that different "beliefs" should not be taken too seriously.
There is indeed a disadvantage in that the Minister of Science is not a scientist and therefore does not see his work as more than work. The only thing I see as an "advantage" of him not being a scientist is that sometimes when you are deep in your niche in science you will not consider the other sciences in the same matter.
Indeed, not fully understanding evolution is not a sin, even science. But the unwillingness to accept a theory developed by the scientific method and to prefer a mere "faith" over it is indeed a "sin" in science. If he claimed that he does not accept this theory but another scientific theory, it would be accepted to one degree or another. Currently there is no alternative theory to evolution that better explains the development of life.
Scandal in Canada: the Minister of Science shows signs of denying evolution. The title here is just as scandalous. Every person has the right to believe or not to believe what they want, what scandal can there be in the fact that the "Minister of Science" believes that he is not committed to believing in evolution? What scandal can there be in the fact that the Minister of Science (who does not have to be a scientist in his own right), does not understand anything about evolution?
Our Prime Ministers have also always claimed that their faith does not harm their position.
And here we are still here.