Recently several researchers tried to use the Grand Canyon in the United States to prove the concept of creationism, according to which the world was created by God and since its creation has not changed.
The Grand Canyon in the state of Arizona is one of the largest and most impressive national parks in the United States. The Grand Canyon has a unique structure: it is a huge slot in the ground, hundreds of meters deep, 16 kilometers wide and over 400 kilometers long. It was formed by geological processes of weathering and erosion that lasted billions of years. The age of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon ranges from two hundred million to two billion years.
The Grand Canyon is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world. Its many visitors cause - usually inadvertently, sometimes intentionally - damage to its natural treasures, treasures that constitute national and world cultural heritage. Because of this, any visit beyond a certain period of time to the Grand Canyon requires prior approval. Also, out of hundreds of requests for scientific research at the Grand Canyon, only about 80 are approved each year.
recently (spring 2017) He asked Andrew Snelling to join the ranks of researchers at the Grand Canyon and take dozens of rock samples from the site. His request has a different background than the requests of most researchers: he is trying to prove that the Grand Canyon was created due to Noah's flood, which he claims happened thousands of years ago. Snelling is not alone. His colleague (whose name is worth millions) Steve Austin photographed fossils in the Grand Canyon and used the photographs to argue that these creatures died in the flood. also Leonard Brand, ThatAsked to collect artifacts in the Grand Canyon, did this to prove that the world is 6,000 years old.
Snelling, Austin and Brand are creationists. Creationism is a view that holds that the world was created by God and since its creation has not changed. Among other types of creationists there are Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists. The "young" claim that the earth was created as written in the Bible, 6,000 years ago, while the "ancient" accept the scientific evidence for the ancient age of the earth, 4.5 billion years, but claim that evolution does not exist, because creation happened as written in the Bible : God created all kinds of animals and plants, and these have not changed since their creation.
When an original population separates into several populations due to terrain barriers, such as a river, islands or mountains, populations may be formed over time in which the individuals cannot mate with each other. This is one of the overwhelming proofs of evolution, and there are many such, for example - dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys, great apes and homo sapiens, basically any two species that can be traced back to their common ancestor. Leonard Brand knows this - and even studied it. Brand's research for a master's degree in biology dealt with the differentiation of mouse strains. But in addition to being a biologist, Rand believes in the correctness of what is written in the Holy Scriptures, as written and spoken. He knows that the scientific findings contradict the creation story and the Christian estimate of the length of time the earth has existed. And yet, Brand believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago.
Brand went out of his way to find claims thanks to the biblical story of the flood: he led lizards - irritated, no doubt - up a slope of wet sand, to compare their footprints with the fossilized footprints of lizards found in the Grand Canyon. From the similarity between the prints, Brand deduced what he assumed beforehand: that the prints were made when the lizards climbed the slippery slope and tried desperately to escape Noah's flood. Brand concluded from this that the Grand Canyon was created in a flood several thousand years ago, as written in the Bible, and not in a slow process of drifting over hundreds of millions of years. If the flood swept the entire animal world to its death, why didn't it damage the delicate footprints left on the sandy ground? To this - and many other questions - Brand does not answer.
After his master's degree, Brand went on to a doctorate in biology and is a paleontologist at Loma Linda University in California. This university belongs to the education network of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (believers in the second coming of Christ), the second largest Christian education network in the world after the education network of the Catholic Church.
Marcus Ross Did a PhD on dinosaurs that lived a hundred million years ago. His PhD was confirmed with honors at the University of Rhode Island. Ross also believes that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. The knowledge on which Ross's research is based contradicts his religious beliefs - and he is aware of this. How does Ross bridge this contradiction? He does not bridge her. At the same time as his scientific thinking, he maintains his religious faith, but when he reaches the points of conflict between the two - the fossil record, the record of the expansion of the universe, the decay rates of matter, radiometric dating, all of which are evidence of a billion-year-old universe - his scientific knowledge recedes before his religious faith. Ross teaches at Liberty University in Virginia, a private Christian university that was founded in 1971 as a Baptist college and is now the largest evangelical university in the world, with about 15,000 students.
Rabbi David Gottlieb, Doctor of Mathematics and lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, Load that there is strong evidence for the antiquity of the universe, and despite this, the Jewish religion's version of the creation of the world and its duration - 5,700 years - is logically correct: "The bones, the objects, the half-life of radium, the potassium-argon dating method, dating according to the decay of uranium, light shift Infrared from space, etc. - all of these point to a longer existence, which however is not real.” The original contradiction.
Most creationists are religious or lack any training in science. In 2001, the Creative Discovery Institute announced that for several years it had collected list of 100 scientists who claim that evolution does not exist. Six years later they were 700 scientists in this list. About half of the scientists on this list specialize in physics, chemistry, computers and mathematics - subjects that do not require learning about the development of life and the evidence for the existence of evolution. In 2005 scientists organized counter petition, whose intention was to gather within four hours a similar number of scientists who announce that they accept the evidence for the existence of evolution. Within four hours "only" 400 signatures were collected, and therefore the effort was extended to four days. In this period of time, 7,733 scientists who accept the evidence for the fact of evolution were added to the list. And it is impossible without mentioning "Project Steve” the semi-humorous one, which also aims to collect signers familiar with evolution, a project in which only scientists whose name is “Steve” or a derivative of that name (Steven, Stefan, Stephanie, Esteban, etc.) are allowed to participate. By December 2016, over 1,400 signatures were collected in this project.
Against this background, it is clear why so many clerics are working to integrate into the academy: they seek to increase the number of scientists whose academic research will be a fig leaf and a pseudo-scientific backing for their anti-scientific views stemming from religious belief. In order to promote their religious faith, they are prepared for considerable efforts: they face an arduous course of submitting theses and academic research that stands up to peer review, and when they reach the coveted doctorate, they use it to claim that God created the world. Science cannot verify these claims, because for this purpose it is necessary to prove not only the existence of God, but also to prove which god is involved among the millions of gods that exist in the various traditions, to prove the way in which this specific god works in the world, and to rule out in a controlled scientific experiment the inhibiting or neutralizing effect of Gods, spirits, demons and other forces of nature.
Obviously, from the point where God enters the picture, science becomes a farce. This could be ignored, if these researchers were not using the impression made by their PhD to influence students, public budgets, public debate and science content in a way that sets science back. Thanks to their degrees, science deniers manage to gain an aura of credibility and score points not only among the general public but also in education committees that determine the contents of textbooks and even in debates in science committees of legislative houses, which are responsible for scientific research budgets in various states in the United States, especially in the deep south, where religion has Relatively firm grip.
Not all creationists insist on the biblical story as written and worded. Only the Young Earth Creationists support the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Many creationists, "Old Earth Creationists" accept the scientific facts about the earth's billions of years, but believe that God is behind the process of the earth's formation and crystallization. They oppose the young earth creationists because the latter give the religious faith a bad name: in its name they are willing to ignore geological and astronomical evidence and radiation measurements that prove the ancient age of the earth. The creationists of the old earth even bother to invest time in refuting the arguments of the creationists of the young earth, thus - whether willingly or against their displeasure - joining forces with standard science and proving its claims.
The Grand Canyon site managers rejected Snelling's request on the grounds that the fossils he is requesting can also be found outside the Grand Canyon. Snelling sued the website and the Ministry of the Interior. His prospects are not promising. First of all, he hid his religious motives when he submitted his research proposal; Second, three independent researchers reviewed the research proposal and found that it did not meet basic scientific standards; Third, creationist researchers have previously been granted access to the Grand Canyon and collected samples, so Snelling cannot claim discrimination against creationists; And fourth, the samples that Snelling is requesting can also be found outside the Grand Canyon, so his insistence is unnecessary.
But Snelling and other creationists will probably continue to insist. The Grand Canyon stars in every basic geology textbook, as a spectacular example of geological processes billions of years old that can be seen in its rock sections. In light of this, it seems that Snelling and his ilk, the creationists of the young country, will not be in a hurry to give up the possibility of adding the Grand Canyon to their tract of unscientific arguments.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
Poll - almost half of Americans believe in creation as described in Genesis
378 תגובות
Yosef
A space created by God, there is nothing better suited to the definition
...Shamulik is still waiting... :)))
albentezo,
You understood my meaning very well. You have a follow-up question.
Regarding dark energy, what is the best way to describe what the math tells us?
Should we think of the expansion of the universe as a created space or? I'm having trouble finding the words. I wanted to write a space that stretched but it sounded meaningless to me
WD
exactly! The only way to believe in God is to assume that he must exist. sad.
All in all, it's amusing* that a man whose claims are all assumptions of what is being sought is a great one who portrays himself as an example and a model of rational thinking and the perfection of logic.
* or tragic
Good. OK. I think I ran out.
Bye.
Raphael
Do you know a scientist who accepts the laws of nature as understood above them? This is exactly the meaning of science - to seek legality for observations. It seems to me that you are contradicting your belief here.
If the existence of a universe requires laws, then our very existence requires the laws - and there is no room for miracles here. Again you contradict yourself.
Raphael – you cannot go beyond your conclusion to prove your conclusion. Here are two examples you tried, and failed. In general, there is no a priori ability to prove existence. This is learned in philosophy 101. It's a shame that you and Effie fall again and again because of this mistake.
Raphael
If everything is a miracle, then the existence of a creator is not a miracle?
And if there must be laws - then why is it a miracle?
Miracles
The people who take the laws of nature for granted are only amazed when they see a miracle that contradicts the laws of nature. Those who research and observe come to the conclusion that all of nature is a miracle, nothing is taken for granted.
In my opinion then there are no other universes and if there are - they cannot exist without laws.
Raphael
In my understanding, a miracle is a phenomenon that contradicts the laws of nature. So how can you say that the mere existence of natural laws is a miracle?
Another question. You assume there are laws of nature in our universe. Could it be that there are other universes where there are no laws of nature?
Albanzo
A mathematical description is not prose. This is a very accurate thing. I'm sure you know that, so the comparison to the description of a cat is not appropriate.
You are the one who started the disparaging personal tone. I held back for several comments before replying to you in the same currency. Belittling others does not show that you are better than them.
All the best.
epic
Evolution does not claim to have been created out of nothing.
Evolution does not claim that information grows by itself.
In conclusion - the basis of your claims is wrong.
In conclusion,
It is customary to define a logical contradiction as a contradiction in all circumstances and conditions.
The term contradiction only is used to identify a contradiction under certain conditions and circumstances ("factual") and then it is customary to call it a "lie".
The term contradiction indicates a logical pattern: A is not-A. This pattern is a logical contradiction in itself.
A pattern of logical contradiction exists in every logical contradiction and every lie.
Hence, every lie and every logical contradiction is a contradiction, and also a logical contradiction.
Hence the distinction between a logical contradiction and a lie is not essential.
This is an obvious logical contradiction, and a lie when it is applied to "facts" that contradict themselves.
Examples: Nothing becomes itself, information that grows by itself.
When it is clear that there is an obvious logical contradiction, there is no point in calling it a lie, but it is possible.
The term lie leaves an opening for circumstances in which it will not hold, and it is misleading when referring to a logical contradiction.
Anyone who does not have the courage to admit that nothing is a logical contradiction or a lie is both a liar and a coward.
There are many here on the site who I would call cowardly intellectual criminals. I have no conversation with them.
And when there is, I will always remember that these are people committed to irrational thinking.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is no point in any discussion when the starting points are contradictory.
To summarize the summary:
The theory of evolution is an agreed colossal scientific lie. A result of collective insanity consciousness.
Raphael,
1. This doesn't answer your question because it's only the first line of my answer. Do you really expect to take an explanation of a busy paragraph and think that the first line of it says everything that needs to be said and is itself a concise answer?
2. Here it is clear that you do not understand what I told you. Nature does not follow patterns. The patterns are built according to how nature behaves. That's my whole point. Let's go to the example of the cat again - you're not surprised that there is an animal in nature whose characteristics correspond with 100% accuracy to the image that comes to your mind when you hear the word cat, right? Why? Because before there was a cat in the wild, then people came, studied it, built words to describe it, and now the word exists. The same goes for physics. As a person for whom this is his career, his only occupation, and his expertise, I try to explain to you that we look at nature and invent artificial tools (mathematics) to describe what we see, and not the other way around. Physics is just our attempt to describe nature, and it also coincides with the fact that we never hit a bullet, and probably never will.
3. You don't have to teach me about the achievements. But not bad achievements are not evidence of a miracle, but only of the existence of smart people who rip ass.
4. Regarding the quotes - explain to me how the second quote shows that you did not distort my words? I told you that if all the scientists think that there are no miracles in nature, maybe they know something that you don't and in response you challenged me to prove to you that there is no creator of the world. This quote is simply my response to you twisting my words! Regarding the first quote, there is indeed room for clarification - the meaning is that all matter and forces in the world are aspects of the same type of string. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't understand it, although if you hadn't brought up just that line but the entire conversation we had I think it would have been clear. We talked about the parallel between strings and electrons and I explained that there are no different types of strings for electrons, protons, etc. And as I already commented, I also explicitly explained to you that the number of strings is not fixed but something dynamic (therefore it is clear that the number of strings is not 1, just as it is not 2 or 3).
5. Instead of condescendingly offering me a good dinner or a drink of water, try not to start a fight, not to behave in a mean way, and when a person respects you with a lot of his time in answering your questions, give him a minimum of proper respect instead of trying to sting, behave in a passive-aggressive way (as you doing right now when you supposedly behave in a nice way and recommend me to sleep well but in fact completely disclaim any responsibility you had for the deterioration of the discussion).
albenza,
I decided to carefully study your scholarly and to-the-point response. To my question "Why do you think that *the very fact* that the processes in nature can be described with miraculous precision using mathematical formulas is not an unfathomable miracle?" You said, among other things, the following:
"I don't think that the fact that we can describe nature is a miracle for the same reason that I don't think that the fact that we can describe a dog is a miracle" - this does not answer my question.
"As humans, we have the ability to think abstractly, so we identify patterns and describe them" - yes, we know how to identify patterns, but explaining why nature behaves according to patterns - no and no!
"If you had an edge of understanding of what science is you would know that it does not pretend to crack nature" - this is already approaching the answer to my question. That is, you say that science does not deal with "why" but only with "how". that's acceptable. But still the "why" is to me a very big miracle.
"We have no promise that we will ever be able to accurately score and "exhaust" a certain phenomenon by means of a mathematical model" - of course there is no promise, but so far the achievements are not bad at all and what is revealed is nothing short of amazing.
And for dessert, since you came to me by mistake that I am distorting your words ("distorting things, and putting words in my mouth") - I will quote two verbatim quotes from you:
"If string theory is correct, then all the particles we know are different modes of vibration of the same string. It does mean that all matter and all forces in the world stem from one source"
"I never said that the fact that I studied led me to think that there is no creator for the world"
And finally -
Don't take too much to heart, it's not healthy. Suggest you check if you sleep enough and drink enough. Complete recovery.
Shmulik
Contradiction does not define anything. This is a feature of expression in the calculation of the verses. An expression can depend on its variables (speech), tautology or logical contradiction.
There are algorithms that answer the question of whether or not an expression can be satisfied (I learned one called Putnam-Davis resolution).
"False" speaks of a claim about the world, and is not directly related to logic (to be precise - the connection between them is by a function of meaning).
In other words,
It is impossible to define something as a logical contradiction. You can define assumptions and sentences that are true or false and check whether they create a contradiction, but you can't define a contradiction just like that. It is also possible to define a "contradiction" as an assumption or axiom, but then the "contradiction" would not be a logical contradiction. All this, if you work under the theory of logic. Also, nature does not care what we define as a contradiction. She will do what she wants. In science, we let nature decide
Maya
You are of course right, but let's be precise. There is a fundamental difference between a logical contradiction and a lie.
False/Truth is talking about what is called a "meaning function", that is, for semantics (meaning) and not for syntax (syntax). For example "Now it's raining on my house". It's either true or false.
A logical contradiction is a syntactic concept - for example A ^ ~A.
But - lying has a non-philosophical meaning. To know that A is true and to claim that you believe A is false is simply a blatant lie. That's Effie's kind of lies. He is afraid to discuss with me, because he knows I see through him. You are nice to him 🙂
Ups
This is not the illogical basis of my thinking, it is the illogical basis of the dictionary.
What is going on here? What are you talking about? Do you think I had a discussion with you about something? I didn't have a discussion with you, all I did was tell you that the words you said: "logical contradiction" have a meaning and a definition and it is not the definition you think it is. that's it. I don't even know what to say, I'm speechless and those who know me know that this is a rare event.
Question to the audience: Did anyone think I was having a discussion here? Wasn't it clear that all I was trying to do was explain that both the words "logical contradiction" and the word lie have a meaning in logic and the two meanings are not the same? I'm trying to be clear, but after the last response I got, maybe a home inspection is needed. Wasn't I bright?
And also, the lack of identity of a thing with itself (A is the same as A) is not a logical contradiction. This is what is called a false verse. A human being (if you really are a human being, I'm already beginning to doubt) there is a professor at the Technion. My name is Ron Aharoni. A cute and wonderful man. Gives an excellent course in the introduction to logic. I sat in it some 15 years ago, I hope it still exists. do yourself a favor give a jump
I take it back. Effie is a poor liar who does not belong on this site.
In the past it was blocked...
Maya,
You wrote: "A logical contradiction is not a lie" and also "A lie is a verse that is not true".
Hence: a logical contradiction is not a verse that is not true. That is, a logical contradiction is true!
This is the illogical foundation of your thinking and it speaks for itself.
To continue your words - it does not contain an objective reference to my words and question except that you do not accept my definition.
A robot needs a definition of true and false. We are not capable of independent thinking. We are unable to decide.
Regarding "there is no way", as a logical principle and I will talk about it, you wrote "I have no idea". He who has no idea is lying.
I expect a person who is not a robot to know how to decide about the self-evident truth, which in this case is 'nothing is-nothing'.
In the previous response I proved your words to be a lie using your own definitions.
And this is the place to tell you: it is not a shame to say: "I was wrong, thank you". It doesn't take anything away from you.
"You can still claim that this sentence is a lie." If I claim it's false, people will ask for proof.
For what self-contradicts itself, one should not ask for proof.
Only those to whom the meaning of words, language and logic are not clear will ask for proof here, and we are talking about you and your friends.
"You're just portrayed as a person who only comes to argue and doesn't listen to half a word."
I suggest that you listen to yourself, your unnecessary words and the psychological brainwashing that brings a smile.
Do you claim that the lack of identity of a thing with itself (A (is) is not A (is not)) is not a logical contradiction?
Maya
The basis of Effie's faith, and also of Raphael's, is lies. It is a very shaky foundation, and woe to those who shake this foundation.
I am not saying that they are liars, I am saying that whoever preaches these things and claims to understand science is a liar.
By the way, Ap, I'm trying to teach here by personal example. Notice what I said to the miracles: "You are right, I was wrong." And look what it is, the sky didn't fall, the world I built around me also remained stable and all that happened was that I learned something new. Could you please admit that you didn't know what the definition of a logical contradiction was and you used those words, therefore, without realizing that they had a different meaning and what you meant to say was that it was a lie? That's not the problem with your argument, really. It won't change anything in your argument, but it will really change a lot in my assessment of you. what are you saying? Is there a situation?
Miracles
Yes, yours is better than the nonsense I tried to write later for Shmulik?
It is clear to me that this is not a logical contradiction. This is what I am trying to explain that a lie is not the same as a logical contradiction. But it's hard. Obviously, the man doesn't really speak Hebrew.
Maya
You wrote: "There is something created out of nothing and there is also something created out of nothing". I think you mean "something is created from nothing and something is not created from nothing" - this is indeed a logical contradiction.
Effie is chattering as usual. There is no logical contradiction. Whether it is possible or not is another question. If it is not possible then it contradicts the existence of God, and if it is possible, it makes his direction unnecessary.
Ups
It would have been much shorter (and much more honest) if you had simply written: "No, I don't understand the difference between the two concepts".
It's nice that you already said that identifying a presence with its absence is a logical contradiction and that's how you define a contradiction, but what to do when you talk to other people, it doesn't really matter what you define. There are accepted definitions. I can also say that from now on I will define radiation with a wavelength of 400 nm as green because that's how I want it and I touched red. It will not change the fact that every time there is such radiation all those next to me will say "look at this beautiful purple". Or in other words: words have meaning, especially in conversation with other people. A logical contradiction has a clear definition and the clear definition of a logical contradiction is not a lie. What to do. Even though you really, really want her to be, she isn't. A lie is a verse that is not true. The verse you wrote: "There is created from nothing" is certainly possible to be a lie. I have no idea. But since there is no identity between a lie and a logical contradiction (except in your head) then it is not a logical contradiction.
I will quote you from an article I found by a religious person (so maybe you should listen to him more) who is actually trying to resolve the contradiction between an omnipotent and omniscient God and free will. I don't agree with some of his words, but at least he knows what a logical contradiction is. And here is a paragraph from this long article:
"Here is the place to go back and refine another point, which has already come up. In the current discussion we are dealing exclusively with logical contradictions. 'Physical' contradictions (=those that go against the laws of nature, not the laws of logic) do not pertain to the question before us, since there is no doubt that sentences that include physical contradictions have meaning (even if in our world they are not true), meaning that their utterance is definitely accompanied by a corresponding cognitive occurrence. To believe that God split the Red Sea against the laws of nature is a claim with a completely clear meaning. The question of whether it is true or not depends, among other things, on assumption 1 above (that God is infinite, or omnipotent). Assumption 2 (that this sentence is meaningful) is obviously true for sentences that include physical contradictions, so they are not the concern of the clarification here. This point will be clarified and sharpened during the discussion later in my words.[4]"
Too bad you just fight. It would have been much more dignified if you had simply said, wow, you're right, I really didn't know there was another meaning to the words logical contradiction, I learned something new. Even this admission alone does not harm the continuation of your argument, because you can still claim that this sentence is false. Maybe people will disagree with you on this too, but here at least you will have some basis. With this stupid insistence, you just portray yourself as a person who only comes to argue and doesn't listen to half a word. No person in the world knows everything. I also didn't know what a logical contradiction was before I was taught. It's not a shame to say: "I didn't know, thanks". It doesn't take anything away from your dignity. really. What you are doing now is dishonoring you. Too bad.
Maya,
'There is is there' and 'no-there is not' is a contradiction. It can be expressed like this: 'Yes is not'. That is, there is a logical contradiction.
I have already said that identifying the presence with the absence is a logical contradiction. And so I will define a contradiction.
That is, not only a sentence with its negation is a contradiction.
By my definition, any contradiction is a lie.
Each sentence can be treated as if it were on its own and its symbol is A and its opposite is not-A.
A is A and A is not A. This is a contradiction, the equivalent of A (yes) is not A (is not).
And therefore the balanced sentence is also a contradiction.
Hence, joining a sentence with its opposite is both a contradiction and a lie. And the combination of yes and no is both a contradiction and a lie.
It turns out that every contradiction is a lie and every lie is a contradiction.
Hence there is nothing, it is not just a lie, as you say, but a logical contradiction.
Are you claiming that the lack of identity of a thing with itself (A is not A) is not a logical contradiction?
Shmulik
You're right, I felt the same way after reading the sentence. Maybe it would be more correct to say: "Something was created only from nothing and some was created only full of nothingness" or something like that.
It is clear that the truth or falsity of the sentence comes from nature. It has nothing to do with logic in any way (which is what I'm trying, probably in vain, to explain to Mr. Guy). What value would I give it? I really don't know that. I assume that first of all the terms there is and there is not should be well defined (as Albenzo explained nicely in his response). And later you need to know some physics (which I don't). Intuitively, too, it seems to me that all these virtual particles that are created in a vacuum are out of thin air, but is a vacuum really non-existent is a very good question. Do I leave that to those older and wiser than me?
Maya,
moment
before you shut up...:)
two things
Sorry in advance for the ignorance: Why is "something created from nothing and also something created full of nothing" a contradiction? Couldn't there have been created anyway? Isn't it a contradiction only if there is an initial assumption/axiom?
What do you think is the value of such a claim in the first place? After all, it is nature (reality or the results of experiments) that determines our Newtonian logic and not us.
Assumption: A photon can only be in one place at a given time.
If a photon is in two places at once a contradiction will be obtained.
Nature: The Two Slots Experiment.
Ups
First of all, I'm Maya and not Mia, please call me by my name.
Second, you are difficult. What value do you give to the sentence: "Existence came from nothing"? Does it have a truth value or a false value? (T or F, as is customary in logic which you understand well). Do you understand that if you give it the value F (false) you still haven't created a logical contradiction? An example of a logical contradiction would be, if we use this sentence: "Something was created out of nothing and something was created full of nothing". Do you understand the difference between a lie and a logical contradiction?
If you think the sentence "existence came from nothing" is not true (or false), that's fine. We can discuss this and maybe you are right or not. But a lie is not a logical contradiction. Do you understand the difference between the two terms?
Shmulik,
It's a bit unpleasant for me to say, but he also washes dishes and folds laundry. I will shut up now…
who is the,
Identifying a presence with its absence is a logical contradiction. Yesh-ma'in means that nothing has become lish. That is, identifying the presence with the absence.
This is obvious and there is nothing to prove.
No amount of formal or informal language will help you prove otherwise.
I am returning this page to you to give you the tools to prove that there is no contradiction anywhere, because to do that you need to understand what a contradiction is and what logic is. Successfully!
http://www.gadial.net/2012/06/17/first_order_logic/
Israel,
No.
Raphael,
Comment by comment I try to answer you in a matter-of-fact manner. You pour ignorance and more ignorance, distort things, and put words in mouth. So if you want to fight, at least have the guts to do so and not hide behind a cowardly mask of Tam who came to study.
I don't think the mere fact that we can describe nature is a miracle for the same reason that I don't think the fact that we can describe a dog is a miracle. As humans we have the ability to think abstractly, so we recognize patterns and describe them. We work very hard on expanding our description capabilities (for example, quantum mechanics cannot be described with the mathematical tools of the 18th century, so we had to invent new mathematical tools). And yet, we still fail - all the theories we have today are effective descriptions. If you had an edge of understanding of what science is you would know that it does not pretend to crack nature. It is only a method with which we can answer questions and test hypotheses in order to get as close as possible to the description of the phenomena around us. I don't know any physicist who is stupid enough to think that the gravity we measure and general relativity (or more advanced theories in the future) are the same thing. It is only the model by which we describe what we see. Just as we invented verbal patterns to describe the plants and animals that surround us, we invented logical patterns to describe the phenomena. We have no guarantee that we will ever be able to accurately score and "exhaust" a certain phenomenon by a mathematical model. It's a shame that such a nonsensical mistake about the nature of the natural sciences is the basis of your argument. Nature is a miracle because we invented the concept of the derivative. genius.
Thank you Raphael, that after a few days of trying to talk to you like a curious person and have a conversation of equals, you reminded me that you are actually here to try to clash with people who don't share your stupid lack of understanding about science. Good luck later.
albentezo,
You understood my meaning very well. You have a follow-up question. I should think of the expansion of the universe as a created space or? I'm having trouble finding the words. I wanted to write a stretched space but it is meaningless. What is the best way to describe what mathematics describes?
Maya,
Well done for killing two birds with one stone. As for the other bird, what, can't he put it in the dishwasher every now and then? Taking the kids to school week is a nice excuse, but the laundry won't fold itself (oops, I said too much)
And thanks for the last links you attached! Great explanation of conditional probability. Again I discovered that we don't give enough respect to Laplace and he doesn't get enough credit for field theory either.
A.P.
When you say that it is not possible to create something from nothing - do you mean order from disorder?
Ups
You're a bit funny... obviously it's not written in the article. The article explains (or begins to explain) what logic is. The idea was for you to read it a bit so you can understand what logic is and use the terms correctly. To come and look for exactly your question within this article is really the definition of what my partner, Shichaya, calls "intellectual laziness" (and he understands laziness...)
And one more thing - if you claim that something is a logical contradiction, you are the one who has to prove that this something is a logical contradiction. That's how it works. I gave this page to give you the tools to do it, because to do it you need to understand what a contradiction is and what logic is.
By the way, I don't think that empty space is "nothing". Empty space is also part of the universe and the entire universe and everything in it is "exist".
Albanzo
Instead of telling me all the time that I'm not listening, maybe tell me already why you think that *the very fact* that the processes in nature can be described with miraculous precision using mathematical formulas is not an unfathomable miracle? Here I am all ears.
If you ask my opinion, I would definitely call it out of nowhere. But I am a physicist and mathematician, not a linguist. Maybe I didn't get to the end of your mind regarding the question of when it is possible and when it is not possible to use the term "out of nowhere".
Raphael,
You have to distinguish between "the majority determines" (if most people say something, then it is the truth now) and "not to be opaque and try to listen to others because that's the only way you learn something" (if most people who have studied a certain field say something, consider the possibility that they don't say it because they are retarded but because their studies make them understand things that you miss). As I have said many times, the choice is yours and at the end of the day you will believe what you will believe.
Shmulik,
I have a bit of a hard time with the words "out of nowhere". These are words. Who decides what is included in this definition and what is not? I know that from a theoretical quantum point of view, if we take an empty piece of space (that is, a piece on which any measurement we make will show that the number of particles in it is 0, what is called a vacuum in physics), there will still be flashes of particles in it - particles that appear and disappear very quickly (too quickly for us to measure them), and are responsible for many physical phenomena. Among other things, they carry energy and therefore even a piece of empty space has energy, and it is apparently dark energy. When I say apparently, I mean that although the phenomenon of creating particles in a vacuum has experimental evidence (for example, in the Casimir effect where you see that between two close conducting plates with a vacuum between them, there is actually a force), the numbers do not add up with dark energy. That is, there is the dark energy that is required for our cosmological model (which is a macroscopic size) and there is the phenomenon of the spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum which theoretically exactly meets all the conditions and is indeed measured in the laboratory (in some cases), but it is a microscopic phenomenon. And when you try to generalize from the micro to the macro, you get a slight error of 120 orders of magnitude. There are many theories as to why there is such a large difference between the micro and the macro, and I personally am quite convinced that the two phenomena are the same, but there is still a piece of the puzzle missing to explain why the numbers don't add up.
albentezo,
Regarding the physical aspect:
When an electron emits a photon, the photon didn't hide in the electron first, but I don't think you can call it out of nowhere because the photon is the result of an electron going down a level and accounting energy calculations that offset nicely.
What about virtual particles that jump "into reality" and disappear? Can they be considered out of thin air?
What about dark energy? In all the lectures I've heard, dark energy is described as a "created space". If I'm not mistaken, you once explained to us that because of dark energy, in fact the law of conservation of energy in the universe is not observed (I hope I'm not disrupting what you wrote). Is it correct to call dark energy from nothing?
albenza,
Regarding the majority, I referred to this sentence of yours "If all scientists (well, obviously not all - but a huge and statistically unusual percentage in relation to the population) don't perceive nature as miracles, wonders and precise plans, then maybe you should ask what they know that you don't"
By the way, in the case of Nissim, the majority of us say yes. And here is also his quote "No, I don't think there is a creator. One of the reasons for this is that if you check, you will find that, in general, there is a negative correlation between religious belief and intelligence."
I'm glad (really) to hear that you don't think science disproves the existence of a creator. Many here do think so.
And a final point - the fact that you are able to explain and define natural phenomena through what you call a "natural process" is the very miracle. What is a natural process anyway? Why should particles behave according to mathematical formulas (another possibility to ask the same question - how is it possible to describe the behavior of particles according to mathematical formulas)? And we haven't asked what a particle even is? Where did it come from?
In short, what is called "natural" for you - for me it is a complete miracle that cannot be grasped by the human mind at all.
"For me, the majority does not decide." Wait, and for scientists yes...? I don't understand what you were trying to say in this sentence. I hope you did not mean to imply sarcastically that with those who study nature the majority rules.
I never said that the fact that I studied led me to think that there is no creator of the world. The fact that I studied certainly made me understand how completely natural processes can create very complex structures that to a person who has not studied will look like planning, or miracles and wonders. To remind you, your claim was that scientists somehow miraculously miss the obvious fact that nature is full of design and miracles. I never pretended to say that doing science disproves the existence of one god or another, but people who bother to study nature see that your name seems like a miracle that can be explained by a natural process.
Albanzo
I also asked. I keep asking. For me, the majority does not determine.
If you want to tell us why your studies lead you to think that there is no creator of the world then I am ready to hear.
Raphael,
I did not ask you to advocate, represent or publicize anyone. What you believe is between you and yourself. I was just offering you an alternative point of view - like the joke about the person who came home in the evening and his wife said to him, "Did you hear that today there was a madman who drove against the direction of traffic in Ayalon?", and he answers her, "One? There were thousands!" In other words, if all scientists (well, obviously not all - but a huge and statistically unusual percentage in relation to the population) don't perceive nature as miracles, wonders and precise designs then maybe you should ask what they know you don't. You don't have to - take stock of yourself. To me as a bystander it seems a bit ridiculous that you openly admit that scientists study nature and know it better than non-scientists, but assume that they are the ones who are wrong about it. It seems more likely to me that probably those who invest their lives in studying a certain subject, are the ones who are more likely to understand it well and not the ones who will miss everything that laymen see.
Regarding the string - I don't know exactly what you mean when you say that I said it's one string, but I do know that during our conversation I specifically explained to you that a string can split into several strings, several strings can be connected to one, etc. Therefore the number of strings is something fixed but a dynamic variable. In classical physics it is customary to think of a system with such and such particles and this number is a constant that characterizes it and does not change. In quantum theories and in particular in string theory this is not true at all. Either way, a process of scattering of two electrons, for example, will be described in string theory using two different strings (asymptotically) and not one string which is the two electrons. Although, as mentioned, during the process the strings can relate to each other and become one, can split into a thousand different strings, etc.
Maya,
I did a search on "Yesh Main" and "1=0" (mathematical example Lish Main) and I did not find any reference in the article.
If it doesn't lead to a logical contradiction, in your opinion, you are welcome to show us through the article.
http://www.gadial.net/2012/06/17/first_order_logic/
I really like this blog, doing a very good job. This is a fairly difficult post (he has many other light and pleasant posts for those who are interested).
Ap, I invite you to read carefully and then explain how something created from nothing leads to a logical contradiction.
Note, we are not talking about whether it is true or false that something came from nothing, we are talking about whether it is true or false to treat this sentence as a logical contradiction.
Successfully.
Miracles,
You gave a real reason for this. impressive. I did not think about it.
Raphael
No, I don't think there is a creator.
One of the reasons for this is that if you check, you will find that, in general, there is a negative correlation between religious belief and intelligence. It is very noticeable here…
Ups
Maybe get some education? Will you learn what science is, and what logic is?
walking,
When you call illogical logical, then you clearly do not know the meaning of the word and the practices required to distinguish whether a claim is logical or not.
I still haven't met anyone who thinks that "nowhere" is included in the laws of logic, except for the fools in this seat of lytz.
Good for you
Raphael
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I would prefer (for me (and I suspect not only for me)) that in the future you say it like that because the phrase 'idle idle' has unpleasant connotations (again, for me) that make you sound bad, and I'm guessing you can understand why. As mentioned, you don't have to, I'm just explaining to you how it makes you look from my point of view. Thanks.
Listen, I learned quite a bit in the discussions here and my opinion goes from here to there (admittedly not on the subject of the origin of the universe, but blame it on broken and false claims). Unfortunately, many commenters come here to preach their mishna and that's it, so as long as this is the case, you are right and indeed there is no way that such people will change their minds, but you forget that we do not respond to them to change their minds. The reason we are responding is for quiet readers who may make mistakes and mistakenly think that these broken and false claims are legitimate claims. When I answer here to a person who makes "logical" claims (in his opinion) but does not even know the meaning of the word and the practices required to distinguish whether a claim is logical or not, I do not do so to change his mind but to protect the mind of the silent reader who may be less informed about the matter The claims and their legitimacy status.
WD
Idle idle = rope
All this discussion will not make anyone move one millimeter from their mind
Check!
Raphael
Maybe because these unimportant little things are the things that reveal and show that the theological ideas that are blown up here are wrong, and that miracles and wonders are actually a very bad way to describe it to look at it, and marvel at it?
Would you be willing to explain what you meant by your 'idle-idle' response?
waiting
Not a hundred years - a hundred light years.
We are dear
The video I uploaded is of Mulholland Drive, and this is to compare to the video that Maya uploaded a few comments earlier on the subject of probabilities and to show that it is the same place.
I didn't know that it would be followed by more videos from a few years ago. Since then more have been added.
But - coincidence - since you write "is it in one of the telescopes scattered around the world" then I received the following email yesterday:
Israel
I've been told by the development team that the upgrade page should be ready at the end of the week.
Why are you interested in Algol?
Best wishes,
Paul
From: snuz2001@aol.com
Sent: 10 June 2017 22:15
to: paul@slooh.com
Subject: Re: Watching Algol.
Thanks Paul, I already emailed them:
Re: Slooh Customer Service Re: astronomer status.
Slooh is a company that rents telescopes for direct viewing on the Internet and Algol - the devil's star - is a Cepheid star about a hundred years away from Earth.
So if they finally succeed after two months of me chasing them to fix the system, maybe we'll finally reach a slam - the long-awaited dunk.
Could be nice, especially because you will be watching from Israel.
By the way - what did you understand from the video?
albenza,
I asked because I am really interested and I sincerely thank you for the time you invested in me. In my opinion, my questions and your answers made some of the site surfers wiser, and of course me too. So not sorry about that.
You did say that it was about one string, but I don't want to catch you at a word because that would cause us to deviate from the topic. Agree with me that Adin, what is clear to everyone, and what everyone expects to discover is the theory of everything. One formula that will include relativity and quantum theory and probably much more than that. I hope you agree with that.
As for why people who don't study nature still believe in miracles and wonders, well, first of all I'm not their advocate or their public relations person, but I guess you can get admiration for the world even by looking at a butterfly or a flower.
Raphael,
First, when you asked questions about strings I answered you willingly because I gave you credit (because of the doubt) that you were interested and wanted to know. Please don't make me regret spending my time and knowledge explaining it to you by turning the physics of strings into cheap demagoguery and missionary work. Point-wise, your sentence "actually everything is one. One string to which everything depends…” is a cheap manipulation. The fact that all matter and forces known to us are composed of strings does not mean that "everything is one". After all, an atomic bomb, a piece of plastic on the bumper of your car, and (forgive me) the water you flushed down the toilet this morning are all made up of electrons and protons. Does that mean they are the same? Is there some mystical connection between the Chinese president's breakfast and the interstellar dust that is hundreds of billions of light years away? No, it just means that there are small building blocks from which big things can be built.
Secondly, I really don't intend to enter into an argument with you, but the question arises: you claim that you do not understand how it is possible that those who study nature do not see in it a precise design, miss all the miracles and wonders, while you (and not only you, but other people who have not studied science ) these miracles are noticed. You are indeed right that among academics who study nature the percentage of belief is *drastically* lower than in the general population. You are free to believe and think what you want, but it seems to me that the question arises: perhaps instead of wondering how it is possible that the people who do study nature do not see the miracles and wonders and the planning in it, one should wonder why people who do not study nature and do not really know what is going on in it, assume which is all miracles and wonders and planning. In other words, instead of being surprised that scientists don't understand what you do understand, ask yourself what scientists might understand that you don't.
Another bit of my opinion is: that if the world was created, logic requires a creator. Whatever. There is a transcendental energy, but it is the Creator.
And yet at the same time, this is a simplistic way of thinking to the point of being childish...
Raphael
It doesn't seem to me that you will get an answer to that from miracles. He just doesn't know but he won't admit it. This is my opinion.
miracles,
I told you - your reactions are childish. I also gave examples and complements that explain why I think your comments are childish.
So what are you saying? Is there a creator of the world but he doesn't love us?
Raphael
What is wrong with my level? dishonesty? Lack of knowledge? Moral level?
What do you think you are better than me?
By the way,
Your response shows that you do believe in the creator of the world but you think he created us to abuse us.
Well, this is also progress (relative to your level).
Raphael
You're right. The world is wonderful. God loves us.
Miracles
You act like a little boy who is angry because his father took away his toy telling him you are a bad father I don't love you. To what childish level do you want to drag the discussion? It's just bad luck with you.
Raphael
Is living with your eyes open childish?
You talk about subatomic particles and all kinds of laws of nature that you invent as proof of the existence of a loving creator.
I describe to you the world in which humans live. This is a terrible and terrible world, and if an intelligent being created it, then it is Satan and not a loving God.
Be serious for once, Raphael. Look at the world we live in.
Miracles
What does love or dislike have to do with it?
Try to overcome your childish way of thinking.
Raphael
What a wonderful plan!!! Cancer, babies with terrible deformities, animals that eat other animals, earthquakes...what perfection!!
Imagine if God didn't love us?!?!?!?
Raphael
This argument has no point because you are dealing with small things.
You have to raise your head a little and look at the generalities (later it would also be possible to get down to the details).
The thing that has always amazed me the most is how people who study science and see the miracles and wonders and wonders and the precise planning that exists in creation, everything according to very clear and precise laws, each particle knows its place in the universe and performs it faithfully without deviating from the mathematical formulas that describe it,
And more recently we see how everything is actually one. One string that is played and everything depends on it (I know this has not been proven yet)
And all of this brings them to the most opposite conclusion possible - that God forbid there is no creator of the world.
In such a case it is clear that the motive for denial is illogical and therefore there is nothing to talk about and convince.
May we all have a nice day.
Israel Shapira
... I have a yard like this at home... not special...
You know what's special? Your experiment (where you abused a laser beam with a chainsaw motor)!
I must point out that only now that I saw the video you uploaded, I understood what you did.
I just have to ask one more small question: after you committed the terrorist act on a poor and weak piece of electromagnetic wave, did one of the telescopes scattered around the world receive... I know... some kind of report... recorded on the page somewhere... in the end someone from NASA decided to write on the same page alongside Reported the word wow?
Are you sure you didn't perform this experiment 40 years ago?!
Maybe you have already learned to control alien technology???!!! Amala.. : ) : ) : )
WD
I don't understand why they are here. They always lose.
Mulholland Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDBXrPQP3pc
It is called that because it is right in front of Holland.
Miracles
Indeed, but what else will they base their religious belief on....
WD
It saddens me that people base their religious beliefs on misinformation, lies, and stupidity…
ב
I don't know how you came into the world, but most people I know started life as a solitary cell. That is, there is a route from a single cell to the Rabbi of Lubbitch.
Mom didn't make the call with you?
Albanzo
You can't leave your stuff without bringing the classic piece:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQObhb3veQA
This is exactly the root of the problem. People think that there is a purpose in evolution (in this case man) and that we are, of course, the essence or purpose of creation or whatever you call it. I admit that it really hurts a little to realize that I'm not (I always thought I was so special...)
ב
Is building straw men an instinctive reaction for you?
Come on, you had years to bring the living cell that is not sensitive to light, stop wasting time, and bring the goods
Woking, are you implying that every cell in the body has a photoreceptor?
Miracles
What do you mean please don't fall? He's been in the hole for years and he's just trying to stay in it. They threw him a rope, built him a ladder, elevator steps and even a private helicopter, but he prefers to stay in the hole.
ב
No problem. Right after you keep your promise and bring a living cell that is not sensitive to light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZZ7WogHxaY
Albanzo, it is true that evolution has no goal. But as soon as she got on the track of the eye - every step on the way to the complex vertebrate eye remained on the track of sight. From the point sensitive to light to the complex vision mechanism of today. Therefore, it is possible to ask whether it is possible to take even a practical mechanism by a person sensitive to light (a sensor, say) and gradually change it into a sophisticated video camera. And the answer is that it is not possible, since there are no gradual steps from a simple sensor to a camera. And actually it doesn't matter either. You are welcome to take any complex system that has dependencies between its parts and try to gradually convert it into another system that has different parts and a different function.
Albanzo
You're right. My master's thesis was to take Paley's clock model and show it to be wrong. I love this pattern 🙂
ב
Please, don't fall into the trap of denying evolution. But, let me help you…
1. Evolution does not claim that every step must be beneficial.
2. Evolution has no purpose, so the analogy is wrong.
3. Clock looks designed. One of the reasons is that it has a purpose. Living beings have no destiny.
4. Evolution is not a "theory"!!! Evolution is a description of a process we see in nature.
If you want - I can explain to you step by step why what is called today the "modern synthesis" is indeed correct.
Ready to hear?
I have no intention of getting into these debates because they are troublesome and pointless in my opinion (of course, this is just my opinion, if you see point in them - go away). I was only bothered by the glaring distortion between the parable and the parable. From here I will return to mathematics and physics.
Good luck to everyone who enjoys the discussions here.
The question "Is it possible to create a wristwatch from nothing with the help of steps that are each "effective" on their own" is demagoguery and does not correspond to any evolutionary process. First, what is "efficiency" in this context? Efficiency in the evolutionary context is anything that does not lower the reproductive chances of the organism. But the most important reason why the question is demagoguery and nothing else is that the question places a certain goal before the process. We are required to produce a watch. From an evolutionary point of view this is ridiculous and unacceptable. For that matter, the evolutionary process in which the eye developed did not "aspire" to create an eye and did so with the help of small steps that did not harm the survival of the species, but went through mutations that did not harm the survival of the species and in the end there was an eye. A question that can be paralleled to the evolutionary process is "is it possible to take a raw material, start making small steps with it, each of which is effective (in the context defined earlier) and at the end of the process there will be something whose functionality is not the same functionality as each of the steps individually?". This is already a question that parallels the process of natural selection and the answer to it is definitely yes, as can be seen in the sources that people referred to earlier (I don't remember who it was that gave a link to the eye development process, maybe a rival).
In short - evolution does not try to produce a clock by small steps, but takes small steps and in the end they look like they are big steps, simply because there are a lot of them. Determining in advance what the end point will be is exactly not understanding how an evolutionary process works.
Woking, my claim to the video has been proven wrong. Just saying it's wrong would be frivolous. Come on...you have a chance to prove me wrong.
And by the way, several parts are needed as a start. Also, to create an inorganic molecule, several parts are needed to begin with, and also for a hill of sand, and so on... And secondly, this claim of yours towards the video is wrong, but since you haven't really watched it and you won't watch it, you won't understand it.
ב
Sorry, that was not the goal
Still waiting for a living cell that is not sensitive to light
Is it coming sometime?
Woking, thanks for proving my point instead of disproving it. The video starts with a pendulum clock as a starting point. That means at least a number of parts are required already as a start. Or in our case - number of genes. Is this evolution you believe in? If you tell me yes, I don't have much to add.
If anyone but happens to want to try themselves to address B's latest nonsense here is a nice video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
ב
Sorry, I'm not allowed to answer your questions until you bring the non-photosensitive cell
Woking, here's a challenge for you to show you why evolution is impossible (contrary to your claim): Can you, as an intelligent agent, create a wristwatch where each step is efficient on its own? If it is not possible, why do you think in evolution it is possible? Note that both in a biological system and in a clock there is a dependency between the components.
I think I will take a little break from the discussions here, good luck to everyone.
Israel
The situation at the moment seems to me to have improved in general regardless of browser or mobile settings, it currently does not save my data but if I click with the mouse it opens a dropdown and lets me select them. (Try to see if it works for you too)
There are many very, very similar areas there. Sorry but it's the same place
'Evolution after the creation of a single cell that reproduces itself is relatively simple. '
App does not agree with you on this either
'A broken plate - you have to remember that in order to reassemble it, it is not enough for the fragments to be glued together'
Ap changed the necessary conditions (and then retracted) and my answer did not state that it is necessarily possible or not but that it depends.
I don't know what the conditions were that a Technion student used, but it is likely that they were not the ones that Shapp suggested were accepted (before he retracted). In any case, there is no relevant broken plate because it is not analogous at all to the creation of life from the "inanimate" or to the development of life.
rival,
If God/Eternity did not have intelligence, he could not have created a nervous system, for example.
Since without him nothing exists and since there is intelligence and intelligent creatures in the world, he has intelligence.
"Where is the proof that God designed molecules"
The proof is on this basis that information cannot be created from nothing and on this basis a snowflake demonstrates information.
I will not bring the proof here.
"Have you ever watched him design a water molecule?"
Have you ever looked at the design of Borg, a chess program...if not, then on what basis did you make this stupid statement?
"A neural network that exists in the brain and in which my self-awareness is created"
I didn't ask about the material in your body and the form of its organization, but what and who is your self-awareness?
To Nissim and his gang - your method of condescending about things like "you don't understand statistics... ask Nissim he will explain to you" is unacceptable to me and therefore I am not interested in continuing a discussion with you on the subject of scientific proofs and scientific theories.
For your information, I do not need explanations in statistics (those who understand will understand) nor what is a theory, hypothesis and proof... and science in general.
Lapp. - From what Thea wrote, I understood that you are a religious/traditional person who sees religion only from one direction that is accepted by the mainstream of Orthodox rabbis, any other current or different direction in religion you dismiss as non-religious or a non-believer or an infidel...
It is known that there are many currents in Orthodox Judaism, there are debates and disagreements on many issues both among rabbis in the past and in the present, and also people who observe all the mitzvot hold different opinions than many rabbis, and that great scientists in biology and physics who are also religious and observe mitzvot, and that one looks a little differently at These things do not make him a non-believer or non-religious, for example Professor Leibovitz who killed a lot of the opinions of the rabbis and also claimed that there is no contradiction between science and faith - do you think he was a non-religious person or a non-believer?
The well-known Yemeni rabbi Kafah, who founded the Dardaim movement, who proved his claim that the Book of Zohar is a forgery - wasn't he a religious person? Or don't believe? After all, he sculpted the holy book that the rest of the orthodox rabbis consider a holy book.
Therefore, there is certainly room to look at religion from Professor Leibovitz's angle, that the Torah was not given to teach science, and to accept science as a whole for everything it reveals, including the theory of evolution, as not contradicting the Torah or religion.
There are several philosophical explanations for this possibility of the existence of religion on the side of scientific teachings such as evolution or the big bang
In any case, since from the point of view of science it is about theories (ask Nissim, he will explain to you what a scientific theory is (; ) and there is a possibility and legitimacy, from a scientific point of view, to find other theories that will explain the same thing. And the fact that science does not find a reason for the story of creation or a reason for the existence of God does not necessarily Proves there is no God.
From the point of view of the Torah: Sacred literature is not scientific literature, and its purpose is not to describe history or scientific facts, but to educate for a specific purpose, and it was also reedited and censored during the Second Temple period, and some researchers claim that it was also changed here and there to conform to the perception of the Pharisaic establishment at the end of the Second Temple ( Chazal, a large congregation...) And there is proof that the Bible does not contain everything written in the holy books that existed at the time, for example wherever it is written "And the rest of the things are written in the book..." a sign that there were other books, and in the Talmud debates between rabbis are recorded about what The words of the prophets to include in the holy literature and what to shelve or censor.
Wookie
Tomorrow, on my last trip with my dog before flying to Israel on Monday, I will try to take a picture of the route and upload it to YouTube. We'll see if it's the same view.
Definitions - I don't want to argue, but it seems to me that this is the role of a rival.
Discussion - Evolution after a single cell that replicates itself is created is relatively simple. The problem is how that primitive cell, or primitive creature, was formed, and I am not aware of a reasonable explanation for this formation. See:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%90_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D
"But despite this, to this day no complete and plausible explanation has been found for the formation of that primordial living being."
A broken plate - it must be remembered that in order to reassemble it, it is not enough for the fragments to be glued together, but it is necessary to find every tiny fragment of it that was carried by the wind to the sea and swallowed by fish guts, and the attachment must be like the original before the great shattering, that is, through molecular forces.
I don't understand much about the subject, but a Technion student who does understand and is not a dos, claims to my understanding that an entropy reversal of this magnitude is beyond the existence time of our universe.
Israel
The mountains of Greater Los Angeles Suburbs are undoubtedly the geographic area where the video was shot.
Regarding the problem that can only be solved by time travel. The cell phone does a slightly better job for me in preserving the requested information. It is possible that playing correctly in the browser settings may yield results.
So in other words you have no idea how you are supposed to know if something makes sense or not, you just decide based on what feels right to you.
Israel Shapira
The entropy of the universe must reverse in the end, but in my opinion, that's not what saddened him, but the thought that "fragments of a plate can return to their original state, i.e. the plate".
In other words, the entropy in the universe will reverse (start to decrease) - but this will happen when the temperature of the universe reaches its maximum (or minimum).
Or in other words - the entropy will reverse at the end but the pieces of the plate will not become a plate again because all the information has already been mixed and the entropy is maximum. The arrow of time is in one direction and everything that happens along the time scale will not return to its original state.
This is my opinion (and I'm sorry that I was short in my words).
Looking at the video I can estimate that 85% of it was shot on Mulholland Drive with the hills in the background being Bel Air and the mountains being the San Gabriel Mountains.
rival
It may have been Raphael's context. For some reason he fell silent.
It's worth remembering that the entire "basis" for Effie's stupid beliefs is a collection of axioms without a grasp on reality. I don't believe he is such an idiot that he thinks all these things are necessarily true. Note that he speaks like a Christian preacher - does not answer questions, belittles the intelligence of anyone who does not agree with every "fact" he brings.
And when you bring a simple argument that contradicts everything he says - he moves on.
In my opinion he is nothing more than a troll, and I really don't understand why you think there is any point in addressing his lies.
Up,
Nice, so you decided to call eternity by the name "God", but you also claim that he has intelligence and the ability to think... where is the proof of this? Where is the proof that God designed the water molecules that made the snowflakes? Have you ever watched him design a water molecule? If not, then on what basis did you make this stupid statement?
Who am I? A neural network that exists in the brain and where my self-awareness is created, I think that is a good enough answer.
Again the link didn't become a click... you can just google the article: "Base rule in advertising" and get to the post from there.
Maya,
True, it's really surprising how much intuition can't be trusted, especially when talking about statistical calculations, in the past I came across an example in your video on this page:
https://lifesimulator.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/bayes
Below in the paragraph that starts with "another example that confuses the intuition a little", and there is also the famous birthday paradox... you can search on Google.
Miracles,
I think Raphael was referring to what you wrote earlier "why waste energy on idle discussions with a liar", I didn't like the stupid connotation either.
Maya
Nice movie!
What I don't understand is religious people who come here just to spew poison. I have never met an intelligent religious person who entered into such an argument.
But I meet so many fools that it's already worrying...
To move the discussion to more fun places: in the context of probability: a cute video about Base (is that how you write it?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R13BD8qKeTg
I was also looking for a video about the measure of levag in the context of the other things said here but I didn't find it 🙁 Those who are interested should read about it.
PS: I also have to type details again 🙁
WD
"And there's more"
I will continue to lie
Stupidity will win
And there is more...
wd,
"What are the principles that guide you"
. Eternity exists.
. He is asleep.
. Nothing is gone.
. There is nothing.
. no no-mish
. the absence of contradiction.
. The case does not exist.
. There is no result without a cause.
. there's more.
Well, there you go, another one to go
How do you know something makes sense? What are the principles that guide you when you try to understand whether something makes sense or not?
Raphael
What exactly was that?!?
Ups
Well, I think I got the gist
Raphael
Can you please explain to me what you mean by writing nonsense.
rival,
1. God is eternal. Another name forever. A God who is not eternal is not God. Surely eternity exists and therefore God exists.
2. The question is who are you? Who is your self-awareness? Ask yourself who am I?
walking dead,
"What is logic?"
Absolute truth.
idle idle
Hahaha…..
Ups
Let's try something easier
how do you know Hebrew?
What is logic?
Ups
Let's try something easier
What is logic?
Ups
Let's try something easier
how do you know Hebrew?
What is logic?
walking dead,
"Do you think this answer makes sense?"
Logical because the opposite possibility is illogical.
Ups
"Where do you get your concept of what logic is?"
makes sense.'
Do you think this answer makes sense?
Do you think this answer means anything?
walking dead,
"Where do you get your concept of what logic is?"
from logic
"There is no information anywhere here that grows by itself."
We talked about it yesterday.
In my opinion, you are ignoring an obvious reality.
"I'd be shocked if anyone here..."
sorry for you Cowards here have no courage, finally one universe that has courage.
"That nothing is not a logical contradiction is a fact..."
You clarified your position.
I'm not going to argue about starting points I accept.
-
Miracles,
You have no respect even for yourself.
Up,
1. If God cannot be observed then how are you so sure he exists?? And on what basis did you determine that "God = eternity", where is the proof of your nonsense?
2. Who am I? A biological organism that developed thanks to a natural process called evolution, your God has nothing to do with it.
Ups
You are really difficult to understand. There is nothing here because this information that you say grew by itself does not exist here. In other words, there is no self-inflicted information anywhere here. You just don't understand it because you don't understand the system. This thing you are reading is not here, it just isn't.
This is not just something I say and it is simply just my opinion. The fact that there is nothing is not a logical contradiction is a simple fact that is related to what constitutes a logical contradiction in the formalism of logic and there is nothing simply does not meet the definition.
The fact that there is nothing is not equal or interpreted or means 1=0, is not just my opinion. This is a fact, which is closely related to the meaning of these concepts. If you want to confess that you mean other concepts that only you understand, please, but stop pretending that's not the case.
I would be shocked if anyone here agreed with you on any of these things, and I have no doubt that if you went to a person who studied logic he would tell you the same thing.
Return
Do you really think you think logically?
Where do you get your concept of what logic is?
Ups
Please - crawl back to your hole. This is not a suitable site for your rants.
rival,
How will you look at what exists without a beginning and without an end, which does not depend on anything? Therefore a viewing requirement is meaningless.
Will you understand what you are asking for?
Eternity certainly exists and God is eternity.
-
I wrote: "Hence something else you didn't think about, that the very existence of water molecules indicates an intelligent planner."
Note, it says "testifying" not "proving". And I wrote it by the way, because that is not the topic here.
Can be proven, but only for those who accept the starting points I accept.
-
Regarding your question, you can answer it only after you answer yourself the question "Who are you?"
walking dead,
You wrote: "There was no talk of something out of nowhere"
To remind you of the course of things:
I have written:
"No':
Information is assumptions and conclusions derived from them. And the conclusions serve as new assumptions...
That information cannot grow by itself means that the existing knowledge cannot create from its assumptions new assumptions that are not included in its definitions.
For example, the definition of the properties of an organ and its functions is not contained in the pulp of its cells per se, therefore neither the organ nor its definition can be created from the collection of its cells per se.
Just as a radio receiver cannot be created from a collection of its components by themselves, and just like that a program that calculates prime numbers cannot be created by itself from a program that calculates even numbers.
(This is logic)"
I wrote: "Information that grows by itself is essentially nothing. A simple logical contradiction and that's all."
You wrote: "You need to check what a logical contradiction is. Something is not a logical contradiction."
I wrote: "When this is your starting point, you will never understand the basic assumptions underlying my words.
There is no point in continuing.
I do not accept this and anyone who accepts this is considered by me to be invalid."
You wrote: "I don't think there is anyone in the universe who understands the meaning of a logical contradiction who thinks there is a logical contradiction."
When someone writes:
"There is nothing from nothing is not a logical contradiction, and there is nothing from nothing is not equivalent to the expression 0=1." So it is clear to me that there is nothing to expect from such a way of thinking but misunderstanding, ignoring, and denying the self-evident truth. And that's what happened.
Information that grows by itself is essentially out of thin air, a simple logical contradiction and that's all, so why don't you grasp it? Because of your way of thinking.
You will deny connection to your way of thinking and you will not understand why I do not accept your "logical" arguments, again because of your way of thinking.
I don't expect you to take my word for it. I don't expect it because of your way of thinking, so I decided in advance that there is no point in discussing it with you.
rival
He insists on his "basic assumptions", because without them there is no basis for his nonsense. Why waste energy on idle discussions with a liar and an idiot?
Yes, I noticed that he has some "basic assumptions" that he expects us to simply accept because it makes sense to him...
rival
I'm going to try to predict your future…
You are likely to come across in your near future 'on a non-arguing point of departure' (or something like that)
Up,
1. "I wrote 'a reason that is certainly true'." God is eternal. Eternity is a certainty. God is not an object of observation because He is not an object and because He is everything.
Hey it's just amazing, on the one hand you try to convince us that it doesn't make sense to accept something we've never watched, but on the other hand you insist that a God you've never watched definitely exists! Say, do you consider yourself a reasonable person?
2. "I already answered you that it is possible to know that something was created by someone/something without being present in the act of creation"
I know you answered but I don't get your answer. You claim that a beautiful snowflake was created "because God designed the properties of the water molecules"... but where is the proof? When did you see God design a molecule of water? On what basis do you expect us to accept this nonsense you believe?
3. "You are asked to answer the question in the context of creating a plate and choose between a certain reason for its existence and a reason that is not certain"
I have already answered you: "If I wake up in the morning and see that the glass fragments have turned into a whole plate, of course I will not think that this happened by itself and will assume that an intelligent person probably put the fragments together or threw them in the trash and put a new plate in their place."
4. "Because he (God) is our son and we are in him." Prove... prove to yourself"
And let's assume for a moment that this nonsense is really true... the question still arises: so what? What do I care that God built us and we in him? In what way should this affect my life or the choices I make?
Well one last reference. There was no talk of nothing here. All that has been said on my part is that there is nothing from nothing is not a logical contradiction, and that there is nothing from nothing is not equivalent to the expression 0=1. All the other things and arguments do not touch anything at all, so your claim about the point of talking to me falls flat. You're trying to push something out of nowhere to a place it just doesn't belong.
Ups
Clarify just one thing (well two) for me please.
Do you really think you think logically?
Where do you get your concept of what logic is?
rival,
I wrote "a reason that is certainly correct". God is eternal. Eternity is a certainty.
God is not an object of observation because He is not an object and because He is everything.
I already answered you that it is possible to know that something was created by someone/something without being present at the act of creation. (scroll back)
You are asked to answer the question in connection with the creation of a plate and choose between a certain reason for its existence and a reason that is not certain.
-
"Because he (God) is our son and we are in him"
prove it.
Prove to yourself.
Up,
"When you have a reason that you are certain is true versus a reason that you have never observed and will never be able to observe, and you have never encountered its realization, what does it make sense to choose?"
Have you ever watched God? Did you see him sitting and planning the properties of the water molecules so that they formed snowflakes? What are you talking about?? What logic is there in your thinking?
"Because he (God) is our son and we are in him"
prove it.
walking dead,
"My response was to your demand that they simply be arranged in the right place."
To the plate or to the "right place" - I will answer the same answer: the properties of the broken glass do not have the property of turning into a glass plate by themselves.
"Therefore your God does not exist, his existence never happened"
His existence was prevented by chance. He is eternal, the absolute that always exists.
"That I even bother to write to you"
Beautiful - you are beginning to understand that I told you from the beginning: there is nothing to talk about.
At the root of every lie is the pattern of there is-from-nothing, or there is-no-mish.
who receives something from nothing, or nothing, publicly undertakes to lie.
There is nothing to discuss with him. Unaware of his lies, he will consider his claims to be true.
What's the point of discussing when you know in advance that you will be lied to?
When starting from contradictory starting points, there is no common basis for understanding, and everything that is said will be considered meaningless, wrong, false, and then you will come out with the accusation that "you are not able to understand the things that are being said to you" - didn't I warn you that the face of things is there.
Everything that says from the false starting points "there is nothing" will be a lie, a lie, a hallucination, or imaginations blooming in the hot air.
I gave you the opportunity to briefly experiment with communication based on a contradiction between starting points.
Ups
'When you have a reason that is certain to be true versus a reason that you have never observed and will never be able to observe, and you have never encountered its realization, what does it make sense to choose?'
You insist very strongly that your belief in God is unfounded.
By the way, have you seen intelligence creating a snowflake? Life? Mountain? Star?
WD
I can accept the idea that there are things that contradict evolution
For example...
rival,
When you have a reason that is certain to be true versus a reason that you have never observed and will never be able to observe, and you have never encountered its realization, what does it make sense to choose?
-
"Why should the matter of its existence even interest us? God exists, God does not exist, who cares? Why should this even concern us?”
Because he built us and we in him.
Miracles
And now seriously. Your expectation that App will figure it out from one to ten?
12-?
"Information that grows by itself is self-contradictory, and hence the probability of self-evolution is exactly zero."
First thing "information that grows by itself" is not a logical contradiction. This is also not true in the classical world. A rat caught in a maze will learn on its own how to get out.
You press - "No and no! The information existed in the maze itself and no new information was created!"
Beautiful!!! Impressive even!!! And that's *exactly* how evolution works!!!!
'Hence something else you didn't think about, that the very existence of water molecules indicates an intelligent designer.'
It seems to me that we understood, and reached the real basis of the matter. For you, everything is evidence of an intelligent planner.
The properties of water require this (for those who know physical chemistry) and this can even be proven by simulating water molecules on a supercomputer.
There is no information here that was created by itself and grew by itself.'
Wow, you know there is no difference between this and the DNA you say is impossible?
Ups
"There is nothing" (1=0)
What a shame, just having nothing doesn't mean 1=0. You are well on your way to being the worst rational thinker in history.
'The properties of the broken glass do not have the property of turning into a plate of glass by themselves.'
You are changing the requirement now. My response was to your requirement that they simply be arranged in the right place.
'It never happened.'
You want to claim that someone tried to do this once? Because saying 'it never happened' about something no one tried to do is not a measure of anything.
(Actually, this is a sufficient reason and without any other reasons)'
Therefore your God does not exist, his existence never happened and this is a sufficient reason without other reasons.
Do you realize how stupid your logic here is or do you now recognize that your God does not exist?
'In my opinion, B is right and you were arguing.'
1) What a shame that your opinion on the matter does not matter.
2) Until you have a calculation that shows this everything you say is baseless bullshit.
3) Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't really want to go through the explanation of this again.
'When someone does not see the obvious, then it is clear that there is nothing to discuss with him.'
You mean when someone thinks that his claim is self-evident, even though his self-evident claim is not self-evident and wrong, and refuses to try to understand why it is so, and why they tell him you are this, there is no point in discussing with him?
Who knows, when it's worded like that, there might be something to it.
'For example, a lump of yeast that turns itself into a brain, intelligence, consciousness...'
Oh no, straw man, no wait, an army of straw men, what am I going to do about it? Oh right, there is no need to do anything about straw men, because they do not at all represent the position of the people you are trying to attack through.
(Or in other words, no one ever claimed it)
'Obviously this is a lack of self-honesty that talks to itself and enjoys wasting time.'
You are not at all able to judge my sincerity or lack of sincerity considering you are not able to understand the things that are being said to you. If you understood your tactics there would probably be no ignoring and building an army of straw men.
'If you're trying to look like an idiot you're doing a good job.'
Feel free to ask around. I promise you that you are doing a much better job. The only evidence supporting my idiocy here is that I even bother writing to you.
Up,
If I wake up in the morning and see that the shards of glass have turned into a whole plate, of course I will not think that this happened by itself and assume that an intelligent person probably put the shards together or threw them in the trash and put a new plate in their place.
But the snowflake example I gave you is much more appropriate for the topic of our conversation, so why insist on a broken plate?
Your direction is clear, you claim that someone supposedly designed the laws of nature so that snowflakes can form, I claim that this is complete nonsense and that you are wrong.
I would also appreciate it if you could answer me, if God does not interfere in our lives and does not care about what we do or do not do, then why should the matter of his existence even interest us? God exists, God does not exist, who cares? Why should it even concern us?
rival,
Obviously this is possible and completely different from the plate example.
The properties of water require this (for those who know physical chemistry) and it can even be proven by simulating water molecules on a supercomputer.
There is no information here that is created by itself and grows by itself.
In order to make shards of glass capable of this, you must add very special and specific properties to them that do not exist in them.
And what you described about stickiness is simply a definition of another material that is not glass. A complete change of their fundamental properties.
You will understand that the properties of attraction between water molecules, which are all identical in shape, are not random but very ordered and in preferred directions.
Hence something else you didn't think about, that the very existence of water molecules indicates an intelligent designer.
-
And you didn't answer the last questions:
You wake up in the morning and see a glass plate instead of broken glass.
What would you choose as a logical reason that explains the transformation of broken glass into a plate - a successful coincidence or an intelligent reason?
When you have a reason that is certain to be true versus a reason that you have never observed and will never be able to observe, and you have never encountered its realization, what does it make sense to choose?
walking dead,
When someone insists that there is no logical contradiction in "there is nothing" (1=0), I understand that they need help.
"On what basis do you believe this? Do you have a calculation that describes the probability of this happening?"
1. The properties of the broken glass do not have the property of turning into a glass plate by themselves.
2. It never happened. (Actually, this is a sufficient reason and without any other reasons)
"We have already explained several times why this is nonsense."
In my opinion, B is right and you were arguing.
When someone does not see the obvious, then it is clear that there is nothing to discuss with him.
For example, a lump of yeast that turns itself into a brain, intelligence, consciousness. And he claims that there is no growing information here.
Claims that seeing and hearing will happen by themselves, but that information does not increase.
Soon he will claim that the ability to calculate prime numbers existed before life was created, because according to him "there is information here that is created from more information by processes and mechanisms that make this possible." And information does not increase.
It is clear that this is a lack of self-honesty that talks with itself and enjoys wasting time.
in brief:
If you're trying to look like an idiot, you're doing a good job.
elbentzo,
Thank you for the explanation, I understood the spirit of things, although I will have to repeat the basics of the Hado'a that I had somewhat forgotten (for example, what is Intergal, something related to an area scheme I think?) in order to understand the explanation more deeply.
Yes, let's see now how he will eat his broken plate 🙂
rival
'Why talk in the air?'
Because on the ground his things have no standing 😀
Up,
Actually why talk in the air? Here you have "plates" that were created by themselves without any help from an intelligent agent:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg/280px-SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg
Possible or not possible?
Ups
'I understand that this sounds unreasonable to you. That's how it is when you believe in nothing
If you're trying to look like an idiot, you're doing a good job.
I said having nothing is not a logical contradiction. There is not a single person who has actually studied logic for more than three seconds and thinks that there is a logical contradiction out of nowhere. Do you already accept it or do you still adhere to this opinion?
The question of whether nothing is possible or not, can be either an axiom or an assumption or an observation. In no case, but it is not a logical contradiction. (in physics, something from nothing does exist)
In any case there is nothing is irrelevant to your claim that there is nothing in it.
Do you know how I know that?
Because your entire answer completely ignored half the questions I said you weren't asking yourself.
'In the same way creating a system to create sugar from sunlight is not possible based on the components of the living cell before its formation.'
So it is not, because the system you described is not analogous to your examples and involves completely different mechanisms. And if you focused on understanding and answering questions 2 and 4 (while combining with three because you still don't understand that there are other ways than the only one whose limited imagination is capable of imagining) instead of completely ignoring them you would understand this.
'I believe it will never happen, not even in an infinite amount of time. You believe it will happen.'
I don't have to believe it or not believe it. Without data that would give me a reason to think one way or the other, the question is unnecessary.
On what basis do you believe this? Do you have a calculation that describes the probability of this happening? Oh no?
'This is not an analogy to evolution, although there is a connection. It is about testing forms of thinking.'
Oh, once again we are not talking about evolution at all. OK OK, get back to me when it's the subject again.
'Respondent B' (previously - A, B) showed that it is zero. I claim that it is zero, but not by dividing by infinity.'
Here you are wrong. Commentator B brought an incorrect gibberish that does not do this at all and we have already explained several times why it is gibberish. Want one more time? Does it change anything?
'Information that grows by itself is self-contradictory, and hence the probability of self-evolution is exactly zero.'
But there is no self-inflicted information here. You have not shown anywhere that there is information here that grows by itself. There is information here that is created from other information by processes and mechanisms that make this possible.
walking dead,
As someone who is disqualified from nowhere, I do not need to answer question 1.
to 3. Aggregated information is not new information. This is pre-existing information.
For example, you cannot add all the information that existed in the 17th century and use it to build a television.
In fact, you will not be able to build a television even if all its disassembled components are in front of you, and the concept of "television" does not exist and has never existed in your knowledge and was not known to you.
In the same way, creating a system to create sugar from sunlight is not possible based on the components of the living cell before its formation.
I understand that it doesn't make sense to you. That's how it is when you believe in nothing. The lie appears as the truth and the truth as a lie.
-
"There's no stopping them from getting exactly the shape of the plate you're asking for"
I believe it will never happen, not even in infinity of time. You believe it will happen.
This is not an analogy to evolution, although there is a connection. It is about testing forms of thinking.
"Eventually you get some probability"
Directing you to your own claim: you must show statistical plausibility. Calculate it literally and give a numerical result.
"You have to show that the statistical probability for evolution is impossible."
Respondent B (formerly - A, B) showed that it is zero. I claim that it is zero, but not by dividing by infinity.
When something contradicts itself the probability of its realization is zero.
Information that grows by itself is self-contradictory, and hence the probability of self-evolution is exactly zero.
Up,
"In fact, with glue you can be sure that this won't happen, since incorrect adhesion will prevent the continuation"
Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, I wasn't talking about randomly spilling glue into the bag, obviously in such a situation the fragments will become one sticky block and not take the shape of a plate. Here is what I wrote again:
"To add to fragments the property of sticking together when they are close and match in shape"
I was talking more about a situation where the broken lip of the part is a kind of strong short-term magnet, or has a certain property of stickiness, only when two matching parts meet each other at the right angle will adhesion occur, that's what was meant.
Ups
No need to assume a connection. It's enough that they get along in the shape of a plate.'
In this case all you have is a question of statistical probability, which depends on the parts and the ways they interact and the dynamics of their movement in your mixing tank. There's no stopping them from getting exactly the shape of the plate you're asking for. In the end you get some probability and then if you have enough time on it to get the desired arrangement you are definitely likely to get it.
If this is where you are aiming then you must show that the statistical likelihood for evolution is impossible. Given the information that all of humanity has in the field I am absolutely certain that you have no ability to do this.
Although it doesn't really matter here, another reason by the way that your analogy doesn't hold is that in the object of your analogy fragments are allowed to connect in several shapes and not just the shape of the plate you are interested in seeing.
The essence of the matter is this.
He claims that:
1) DNA contains information
2) Information cannot be created by itself or develop by itself
3) Evolution is the development of information
4) Hence, evolution is impossible (without the external intervention of a planning creator)
He does not ask himself:
1) Why can't information be created by itself? This is an axiom
2) What besides the DNA in the system constitutes information and what doesn't? (or in other words, the information)
3) Are there any processes that are able to take information (from several sources) and roll it into other information and thus develop into new information?
4) What are the processes that take place in reality and whether and how do they relate to the analogies he uses? (They are not because he ignores the proceedings because he either does not understand them or they interfere with his opinion)
To the opponent,
"Actually" - properties of a thing that are revealed in the present. For example, a tree seed has properties of shape, mass, texture, hardness, etc., which are observed in the present.
"By force" - properties of the thing that are not manifest in the present, which should be realized without any interfering factor. For example the tree that grew from the seed.
"To join together broken glass into a whole plate without glue" - there is no need to lay a connection. It's enough for them to fit in the shape of a plate.
Note! You do not prove that the glass fragments will fix themselves (with or without glue). You believe it will happen.
In fact, with glue you can be sure that this will not happen, since improper adhesion will prevent the continuation.
To be sure this will happen you need another feature that they don't have.
You wake up in the morning and see a glass plate instead of broken glass.
What would you choose as a logical reason that explains the transformation of broken glass into a plate - a successful coincidence or an intelligent reason?
When you have a reason that is certain to be true versus a reason that you have never observed and will never be able to observe, and you have never encountered its realization, what does it make sense to choose?
-
Regarding your question - God is morality itself without coercion. It means absolute freedom.
rival
That's exactly the point. He denies these conditions and the possibility of their existence.
walking dead,
It is true that a plate is not equivalent to a living cell, but it is still an analogy that can help him understand how an orderly thing can form spontaneously (given the appropriate conditions) without the need for intelligent order.
rival
You are wrong. It won't help him understand. For him, once you talk about a broken plate, there is no way back to the plate no matter what conditions you change. The problem is that a plate doesn't work in any way that parallels life.
albentezo,
Thanks for the answer and here you go, from time to time we manage to post comments
walking dead,
He gave the example of the plate and I just flowed with him, in my opinion the example of the broken plate can actually be a pretty good analogy that will allow him to understand how order can be created out of disorder given the appropriate conditions (which will perhaps allow him to understand how the first living cell was created in the "primordial soup") .
rival
Ep's broken plate analogy is dead wrong. In fact if we want something more precise there should be oxygen and hydrogen in a bag and you should get water from them.
It seems to me that he thinks that dna really has sequences of letters, and that it is not actually about molecules that are connected together due to physical factors.
Shmulik,
I think that for a change it would be easiest to explain the matter technically (I usually avoid getting into math in comments). For a continuous random variable, the probability of being found in a certain section (for the sake of simplicity, let's assume a one-dimensional random variable) is the integral over the probability density function between the end points of the section. That is, suppose the floor in the room is one-dimensional, the probability that the coin will fall between 0 and 1 is the integral over the density point between 0 and 1. If we look at a single point, for example, 0, we will have to carry out the integral between 0 and 0. This integral is equal to zero because the density point is continuous and finite (there are more strange density points for which it is not 0, but that is not our concern - these are the atomic distributions which I mentioned earlier). Note that the probability density at point 0 is not 0! But the integral turns out to be zero because the width of the segment we agreed on is too small.
So technically it is possible to calculate the probability for a certain point and get a result of 0. But this is simply not a meaningful thing to do, because on the surface of the continuum it is impossible to look at individual points in this way. The segment between 0 and 1 is not simply a sum of the individual points that make it up, but a union of open spheres around all these points. This is what makes it possible to create a sequence. The intuitive way I tried to convey earlier is that in a continuous space looking at the point 0 is not enough - you also have to look a little to the right and a little to the left because the point 0 is simply the border of the domain to the left of it and the domain to the right of it. It is not well defined without these areas. As soon as we look at a domain - even if it is infinitesimal - the integral will no longer be 0, but will be proportional to the infinitesimal length of the domain (the fundamental equality of continuous probability theory is that the probability *around* a certain point X is equal to the density at point X times the size of the environment dx).
This also brings us to an opponent's question - how is it possible that the total probability is not 0 if it consists of an infinite number of points each of which has a probability of 0. So this is simply not how continuous spaces are summed. It has nothing to do with probability at all, it has to do with the definition of a sequence. You can ask a reasonable question about Hadwaa - let's look at the constant phon that has a value of 1 in the whole space (that is, for every X between minus infinity and plus infinity). Its integral between point 0 and point 1 is of course 1. But its integral exactly at point 0 (that is, between 0 and 0) is 0. And its integral at point 1 (that is, between 1 and 1) is 0, and so on for every point between 0 and 1. So how is it possible that the integral on the segment comes out 1 if it is the sum of all the integrals at the intermediate points and each of them comes out 0? The answer is that this is not how you sum a continuous variable. The reason that each individual integral came out 0 is because we were looking at a point with width 0. When we connect all the points in a segment we are not simply summing (a well-defined scheme only for divisor variables) but we are connecting all the infinitesimal environments. In fact, now I can think of an even simpler example - how is it possible that the space between my finger and the keyboard is 1 cm? After all, the section that separates the finger from the keyboard consists of a sum of dots, each of which is 0 in size... The answer is, of course, in the way these dots are connected.
I already had a long debate with Nissim about whether or not a precise definition of a sequence (by the limit concept) solves the Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox. I strongly believe in the statement that yes, Nissim disagrees with me. Either way, mathematically (philosophy aside for a moment), this is how things are defined and a correct use of the mathematics of the sequence solves all the problems raised here regarding probability.
it's not me. This is WordPress. Sometimes he lets work quietly and sometimes dismisses legitimate responses wholesale.
Shmulik,
What I find difficult to grasp is how a collection of points that each have a probability of zero together become a probability greater than zero?
How is it possible that the chance of the coin hitting the floor is 100% when the floor consists of infinite points that the coin has no chance of hitting any of them? Does the addition of infinite zeros become a value greater than zero? This is what is implied…
Up,
1. "It is important that you answer the question - why can't the fragments of glass (without glue) based on all their properties actually and by force turn themselves into a plate of glass? Why is this impossible? What is missing, that is not found in fragments of glass, so that they become a plate?'
Even Albert Einstein is not able to put together broken glass into a whole plate without glue, what is your point? PS - I don't understand the meaning of the phrase you keep using "in practice and power", why are you using it?
2. "In your opinion, very large numbers alone can make the impossible possible, in my opinion not. Any amount of shaking and bagging will not cause the glass fragments with glue and without it to act on each other in order, form, strength, direction, coordination, timing, quantity, in such a way that they become a plate of glass. A claim against a claim"
Why not? After a lot of shaking, two fragments that match in shape will in this case approach each other at the appropriate angle and connect together into a larger part, this will happen at the same time with the other fragments in the bag, little by little more and more pieces that match in shape will connect and the bag will contain larger and larger fragments that will begin to connect with each other into even larger fragments , until finally the watering will contain two large fragments which, after a few more shakes, will join together into a whole plate. Why doesn't this script make sense to you?
3. You didn't answer me about your faith and it just intrigues me, which God do you believe in? In the one who created us but does not require us to keep Shabbat and observe mitzvot? And he doesn't care if we eat meat with milk or steal and murder?
albentezo,
It's hard for me to reconcile some of the things you wrote.
I understand the following sentences:
The very fact that you defined a continuous probability space means that every point in it has "precision", although this precision is infinitesimal. That is, there is simply no meaning to the mathematical question "What is the probability of getting a value x for a continuous random variable?"
and-
The question is well defined only for "What is the probability of getting a value inside an open sphere around the point x with radius d x for the continuous random variable?".
I do not understand the next sentence in light of the previous two sentences.
"...you were right that the probability of a point is 0..."
If the question has no meaning for a single point, how can you say that the probability is zero?
On this occasion, I would like to apologize for introducing quantum mechanics (and certainly not in such a correct way). I was interested in the question of currency in the real world and that at some point when you dive deep enough, the answer must change vocabulary
Avi Blizovsky
Allow me to complain about the difficulty and complexity of sending the comments. Well, it makes it difficult to conduct a proper dialogue and makes the whole environment of the forum cloudy. This causes discomfort and unnecessary arguments between the other members of the group.
I am asking you in every language of request, please, arrange the matter so that surfers can express themselves freely and in such a way that does not make the other members of the group feel that they have no part in an active dialogue.
Good Demet!
Israel Shapira
The universe is not infinite. He is in fact - reversible! And there are also rumors that he is a thief... maybe that's why the information isn't saved... on your computer?
Waiting (what did I say? A plate?).
A small note before you go to get the food (that's how it is with our doss).
"Any number of shakings and bags will not make the fragments of glass with glue and without it act on each other in order, in a form, in force, in direction, in coordination, in timing, in quantity, in such a way that they become a plate of glass."
Since we are dealing with entropy reversal, Poincaré, a mega-mathematician, proved that not only the entropy of a broken glass plate can be reversed and the fragments will become a plate again - that of the entire universe must also eventually be reversed.
This is mainly what saddened poor Boltzmann and made him disappear.
Marina's comments.
I understand that the genius went from replica car to broken plate.
rival,
In your opinion, very large numbers alone can make the impossible possible.
I do not think so.
Any amount of shaking and bagging will not cause the glass fragments with glue and without it to act on each other in order, form, strength, direction, coordination, timing, quantity, in such a way that they become a glass plate.
Claim against claim.
What would you choose as a logical reason that explains the transformation of broken glass into a plate - a successful coincidence or an intelligent reason?
It is important that you answer the question - why can't the fragments of glass (without glue) based on all their actual properties and by force turn themselves into a glass plate?
Why is this impossible? What is missing, that is not found in broken glass, for them to become a plate? That you understand that information cannot grow by itself.
and one more thing. Everything can be seen as information, so there is no special meaning in seeing evolution as information.
Ups
By the way, why do you never answer any of my questions? Even these are really, really easy.
Ups
'As far as I'm concerned, your words are a kind of expression of resentment and psychological brainwashing. You do not understand the validity of my words and want to convince me that I do not understand them myself.'
Psychological brainwashing? Got some other concepts you'd like to throw out that aren't related at all?
Ah, so your argument is that DNA in a cell is like information encoded on a hard disk. That's right, DNA encodes information like the information that is encoded on a hard disk. then what?
Do you know the difference between a computer disk and a living cell? Do you understand how this relates to this thing I was talking about and asked if you understand it at all? These mechanisms that make up evolution?
"Information formulated in all the languages that science knows and that we do not yet know"
No, seriously you keep repeating that. What do you mean by that?
Ups
DNA encodes a lot of information. what's the point
walking dead,
For me, your words are a kind of expression of resentment and psychological brainwashing. You do not understand the validity of my words and want to convince me that I do not understand them myself.
A computer disk is not information either, but surprisingly it contains information. A disk that is not capable of containing information is not a disk, the same is discussed.
But.. leave.
To sum up my words:
. My opinion - those who are unable to see in evolution information formulated in all the languages that science knows and that we do not yet know, do not understand at all what evolution, language and logic are.
Ups
'Refer again to my definition of information as assumptions, conclusions, definitions, concepts, identities, properties, causes, plans, forms, names, as formulated in a medical book on the human body.'
1) As formulated in a medical book about the human body?
2) This definition is not so good
A) In a certain sense, according to this definition, I am forced to ask: which of these exactly do you think is DNA?
A) In a certain sense, I don't think there is anything that is not information. Do you have an example of something that is not information according to this definition?
'My claim is that all this information originates from the human DNA. And if it originates from DNA, then the essence of DNA is information.'
So the essence of DNA is information even though it is not information? Or is it information whose essence is information?
'According to your words, would you not be able to identify a person's DNA as a person's DNA, a wheat's DNA as a wheat's DNA, given that it is presented to you as anonymous DNA along with the knowledge necessary for identifications found in genetic databases?'
Don't know how you got that.
Is the expression "DNA of a human fetus" meaningless in your eyes? Because according to you there is no information in the DNA, therefore it is a meaningless jumble.'
You mix things up in a way that complicates you and brings you to things that no one claimed.
According to the previous definition you gave to information, there is no information in DNA. Any current mouth? Well that depends on what you mean.
Is the something that causes the DNA of an embryo to develop into a creature not information? what is? Why does he make the fetus develop?'
This of course depends on your definition of information. Did you start to understand the problem with 'every person with a scientific and technological background uses information and knows what it is even if he didn't define it.'?
… more of the same…
'Do you remember the definition of evolution I gave you?'
You mean this I guess:
'Evolution is the development of information.'
if you want, ok? But then no one has any point in talking to you about evolution because your evolution is not the evolution they talk about in biology. If that's what you want, then the next time someone tells you that you don't understand what evolution is, answer them one of the following two:
A) Yes, you are right
b) When I say evolution, I mean another concept that I call evolution, and it is not the evolution that was meant in all these other places that deal with biology.
'I gave a simple and logical explanation, that you don't see it as an explanation, that's your problem.'
Your explanation does not touch at all on any of the mechanisms that make up evolution (the one that all the others talk about, not the one that exists only for you)
'I will not argue with someone who thinks I don't know what it is.'
I don't think anyone here thinks you know what evolution is, but feel free to ask
'In your opinion, not in my opinion'
It's not a matter of opinion. When you provide no basis for your claims they are baseless.
'I brought, read my entire response.'
Which of the following do you think you brought?
1) Reasons
2) Reference
3) Supporting evidence
Which of the following do you not know?
1) Reasons
2) Reference
3) Supporting evidence
'In your opinion'
Who is responsible for your logical training?
"Information formulated in all the languages that science knows and that we do not yet know"
Because it seems that you supposedly think that rational thinking, logic and logic are important tools but your application is extremely off the mark.
walking dead,
Refer again to my definition of information as assumptions, conclusions, definitions, concepts, identities, properties, reasons, plans, forms, names, as formulated in a medical book about the human body.
My argument is that all this information originates from the human DNA. And if it originates from DNA, then the essence of DNA is information.
Simple logic.
-
"There is no information in the DNA of a fetus about anything"
. According to your words, would you not be able to identify human DNA as human DNA, wheat DNA as wheat DNA, given that it is presented to you as anonymous DNA together with the knowledge necessary for identification found in genetic databases?
. Is the phrase "DNA of a human fetus" meaningless in your eyes? Because according to you there is no information in the data, therefore it is a meaningless jumble.
. Is something that causes the DNA of an embryo to develop into a creature not information? what is? Why does it cause the fetus to develop?
"There is no information at all in any DNA of any kind according to the definition you gave."
. Is information included in the data in any way?
. What is it about the DNA that becomes the properties of a heart for example, its engineering structure, its physical properties, its function, etc.?
It is clear to you that a phase is not dna, so what do you call a dna thing that causes the creation of the heart?
. Do you mean that information is only what is expressed in natural language, and encrypted information (encryption) is not information?
"Your definition of information has nothing to do with evolution."
We will check:
Do you remember the definition of evolution I gave you?
"Your question related to genes - genes encode information, for example, about the heart, its engineering, electrical structure, function, etc.
Evolution is the development of information. Information is the object of evolution. He is discussed when discussing evolution.
Therefore, understanding each and every gene at the level of planning represented by them is necessary for understanding evolution.
That's why I wrote "If you can't know how a creative process is actually carried out and what is the underlying body of knowledge necessary to understand it, you don't understand it. You have no idea what you're talking about."
To summarize your objection:
"There is no orderly and coherent explanation" - I gave a simple and logical explanation, that you don't see it as an explanation, that's your problem.
"You really don't know what evolution is" - I suggested, don't debate with someone who doesn't know what evolution is, and I won't debate with someone who thinks I don't know what it is.
"Your baseless claims" - in your opinion, not in my opinion.
"You must explain your intention well and give reasons and provide supporting evidence for your claims" - I brought, read my entire response.
"There is no link between information (according to your definition) and evolution" - in your opinion.
. My opinion - those who are unable to see in evolution information formulated in all the languages that science knows and that we do not yet know, do not understand at all what evolution, language and logic are.
Ups
I'm not a biologist or anything
But, for example, as far as I understand, evolution exists and is being observed in laboratories, right now in populations of bacteria that are adapted to the changing environment, so the comparison to 'populations' of broken plates is probably not accurate...
Up,
So do you believe that God exists but that he does not expect us to keep mitzvot?
Again, if you allow adding to the fragments a property of sticking to each other when they are close and compatible in shape, then after a lot of shaking there is definitely a chance that you will have a complete plate (say after a billion years of shaking, and not one bag but billions of bags, each of which are fragments of a plate) .
rival
Say - you don't know Ep's replica car? Are you really having a discussion with him? The boy is a sick liar…
rival,
I am not religious.
I asked you to give an answer on a principle level why it is impossible. Why is this impossible? What is missing, that is not found in broken glass, for them to become a plate?
You can add glue to the bag and shake it.
Up,
And I have to ask how is it that you write here after entering Shabbat? How does this fit with your faith?
Miracles,
"The probability that the coin will fall on the floor is 100%. The probability that it will fall (exactly) on a specific point is 0%"
But in practice it did fall on a specific spot on the floor... and if I had asked you before the throw what was the chance that it would hit exactly there, you would have told me 0, but you were wrong because it did hit there.
Up,
According to the conditions you describe it is indeed impossible, but since we are actually talking about DNA then you must change the conditions of your parable and also assume a property of stickiness and adhesion between the fragments, otherwise it will not be comparable.
rival
The probability that the coin will fall on the floor is 100%. The probability that you will fall (exactly) on a specific point is 0%.
My pending answer tries to break it down into parts:
Up,
1. How is it that a person who believes so much like you does not observe Shabbat?
Up,
1. How is it that a person who believes so much like you does not observe Shabbat?
2. According to the conditions you describe it is indeed impossible, but since we are talking about DNA here then you must change the conditions of your parable and also assume a property of stickiness and adhesion between the fragments, otherwise it will not be comparable.
Ups
'You mean that there is no information in the DNA of an embryo that includes the identity of the creature that will develop from it?'
According to the definition you gave, yes. There is no information in the DNA of a fetus about anything. There is no information at all in any DNA of any kind according to the definition you gave.
I have already explained that information cannot grow by itself. This is the basis of proof.'
Regardless for a moment that your definition of information has nothing to do with evolution.
An orderly and coherent explanation should start with a description of what evolution is (in the language you use*) and only from there can he continue to why it is not possible.
I appreciate that you don't because you really don't know what evolution is and can't give such an explanation, which unsurprisingly leads you to all your baseless claims.
Information cannot grow by itself is a claim that does not stand on its own. If you are interested in someone being able to understand your intention, you must explain your intention well and give reasons and provide supporting evidence for your claims. At the moment, even if you accept that information cannot grow by itself as part of the definition of what information is, there is no link between information (according to your definition) and evolution. Therefore, your words cannot be seen as an explanation or even half an argument.
*Because you probably also use this term differently from the rest of the world
rival,
Answer without changing the conditions of the questions and with an understanding of what tiny shards of glass are.
rival,
I didn't understand why you didn't understand.
Take another example:
A bag containing broken glass. I know they come from a glass plate. you don't know that
Explanation - why can't the glass fragments, based on all their actual properties and by force, turn into a glass plate by themselves?
Explanation - why is it not possible for you to know that the source of the fragments is in a glass plate?
Up,
Let's assume that the plate was broken into 3 or 4 pieces, and they have a certain property of stickiness (as atoms and molecules have in nature) in that case there is definitely a chance that they will join together again inside the bag to form a plate if they happen to line up at the right angle towards each other.
"Explanation - why is it not possible for you to know that the source of the fragments is in a glass plate?"
And why is this not possible? Is it not possible for me to see a match between the fragments? Is it not possible for me to see that part A corresponds in shape to part B and conclude that in the past they were connected? Can't I, based on this understanding, put all the fragments back together into a whole plate?
Miracles,
I know that probability talks about the chance of an event occurring in the future, but if you say (before tossing the coin) that the probability of hitting the floor is 0, and in fact the coin did hit the floor, then it looks like a paradox or a calculation problem.
Yes, I remember that this is a side discussion to the discussion about the probability of the formation of life, and indeed it is a meaningless question because we lack a lot of data to be able to make this calculation.
walking dead,
"On the basis of this definition, no information was created and no information exists in DNA."
You mean that there is no information in the DNA of an embryo that includes the identity of the creature that will develop from it?
"Then why are you unable to present a coherent argument that explains it?"
I already explained that information cannot grow by itself. This is the proof base.
rival
I think it seems like a paradox - because the understanding of probability is incorrect.
Probability talks about a future choice - the meaning of probability %X for a certain event is that if we make many choices then we expect that in %X of the cases the particular event will happen.
The concept of probability has no meaning for an event that has happened. I tell you that I got up in the morning and the pavement is wet - can you tell me now what the probability was that it would rain? Of course not - maybe sprinklers were activated at night?
It is important to understand this - because you will remember that the basic topic of the discussion is what is the probability of the formation of life. I argue that this question is meaningless.
Albanzo
I understand what you are saying. I think we are saying the same thing, only you phrased it correctly…
Miracles,
Your cotton thread example is the same as the coin question, you are asking what is the probability of the scissors hitting some point on the thread and it is the same as asking what is the chance of the coin hitting some point on the floor.
Mathematically, the answer is zero, and for the question to have meaning, one must define a certain range of Min, Max and ask what is the chance that the coin or the scissors will hit one of the points between them.
I'm just saying it sounds like a paradox because if the probability for each point is zero it means the coin will never actually hit the floor and we can never cut the string, but that contradicts what actually happens.
Ups
'I am not talking about the refutation of evolution but about the invalidity of the theory of evolution and that the assumption of an intelligent designer is absolutely necessary.'
So why are you unable to present a coherent argument that explains this?
'Regarding the information - I have already defined: assumptions and conclusions.'
Okay, based on this definition no information was created and no information exists in DNA.
'Every person with a scientific and technological background uses information and knows what it is even if he has not defined it.'
It doesn't work that way in philosophical or scientific formalism.
When this is your starting point, you will never understand the basic assumptions underlying my words.
There is no point in continuing.
I do not accept this and whoever accepts this is considered by me to be invalid for discussion.'
So you should stop talking to everyone. Because I don't think there is anyone in the universe who understands the meaning of a logical contradiction who thinks there is a logical contradiction.
Well, it's not normal anymore. I can't write anything without the comment being shelved. The comment system here belongs in the 90s, at best. Just a joke.
Miracles,
It makes sense that you no longer see my comments, because as I said - they are delayed. They will probably be released after the weekend. In two words, the point I thought you were not precise about (and maybe I misunderstood you) is that what you presented as a physical level of accuracy (the length of my ruler) is not just a physical limit. From a purely mathematical point of view, the value X must also come with a level of precision, and the super important difference is that mathematically the precision is infinitesimal (due to the fact that on a sequence you can differentiate between numbers but not infinitesimal). That is, without having anything to do with physics, with rulers, with the person who performs the measurement - mathematically, a question about a continuous random variable must be formulated "what is the probability of measuring the variable inside a sphere whose center is at point x and radius dx (infinite)", and not "what is the probability of measuring the variable at a point X".
Albanzo
Except for your response that I referred to, I don't see any other response.
rival
Take a coil of cotton a meter long, and cut a piece of it, without measuring.
Please tell me - what is the probability of getting the length you got.
And please, don't answer "weak probability".
Also read Albenzo's explanation. I understood that what he is saying is that the question has no meaning mathematically, and he is of course right. In my understanding - the level of accuracy must be defined and then we are talking about a segment and not a point. This is what we will try to explain earlier with the division of the room into units of meters and so on.
And Albenzo says - the probability of choosing a real number from a group in the strength of the sequence is exactly 0. And to be precise - the real number itself is not well defined (as far as I remember - the topic is dedicand sections).
rival,
I didn't understand why you didn't understand.
Take another example:
A bag containing broken glass. I know they come from a glass plate. you don't know that
Explanation - why can't the glass fragments, based on all their actual properties and by force, turn into a glass plate by themselves?
Explanation - why is it not possible for you to know that the source of the fragments is in a glass plate?
walking dead,
"Having nothing is not a logical contradiction."
I got you. That explains the rest of your words.
"Does not constitute a refutation of evolution.." - I am not talking about the refutation of evolution but about the invalidity of the theory of evolution and that the assumption of an intelligent designer is absolutely necessary.
Regarding the information - I have already defined: assumptions and conclusions.
Every person with a scientific and technological background uses information and knows what it is even if he did not define it.
You create or discover knowledge when you plan and create a house, software, machine, spaceship journey, computer, medicine, synthetic materials, write a book, conduct research, countless things.
Define for yourself what information is.
In other words:
You expressed your opinion which is not my concern. And without expressing specific concrete content there is no point in responding.
"Having nothing is not a logical contradiction."
When that is your starting point, you will never understand the basic assumptions behind my words.
There is no point in continuing.
I do not accept this and anyone who accepts this is considered by me to be invalid for discussion.
Ups
'In my discussion with Yariv and A. I explained with examples why information cannot develop and grow by itself.'
But the problem you are ignoring, is that you have not explained anywhere clearly what you mean when you say information, and given that you are using the word differently from any normal use of the word as long as you do not define what you mean when you say information there is no meaning at all The things you say about him around and through him.
So far at best, it can be concluded from what you write that the only reason information cannot be created by itself is that it is part of the definition of information you are using.
'Information that grows by itself is essentially out of thin air. A simple logical contradiction and that's all.'
You need to check what a logical contradiction is. Having nothing is not a logical contradiction. I think we've already talked about this and I've explained it to you before.
Evolution is the development of information. Information is the object of evolution. He is discussed when we discuss evolution.'
You see, until you define information these sentences have no meaning.
'Understanding each and every gene at the level of planning represented by them is necessary for understanding evolution.'
You just repeat the same thing in a different way and say nothing. The fact that you say things decisively does not give them weight. A broader understanding of the coding and expression of each and every gene will indeed expand the understanding of evolution, but a lack of such understanding does not constitute a refutation of evolution and evolution is well confirmed even without any specific information about gene coding and expression. Do you know anything about the knowledge found today in biology about gene coding and expression?
'Your questions 1-3 are more expressions of bewilderment than questions.'
No, there is no bewilderment here, these are questions that a person should answer if he wants to believe that there is a foundation for his basic belief on which he builds his entire perception of reality.
Considering that a significant part of your real starting premise is meaningless, it seems to me that the need to test it is most justified, and therefore the questions are most justified.
'They are of no concern to me.'
Because you don't really want to deal with the possibility that your starting assumption is wrong and you might need to replace it.
'We don't argue about a point of departure. accept or not accept
If you want to have a starting point, it is desirable to have a reason to think that this starting point is a good starting point that will be beneficial so that the thinking and the conclusions you will reach from it are high quality and true and will benefit you. To get an origin discount just like that is complete stupidity.
If I come to you with the premise of finding that colorful and magical unicorns are the basis of everything that happens in the universe and they decide and carry out everything that happens. You should just accept it because the assumption of origin is not disputed?
'You can tell yourself stories about how unclear my words are to me, it's trivial and pointless. They do not touch the content of my words and show that you did not try to understand them properly.
Again, all the reasons for what I said have already been written before, which you ignore and complain about.'
Listen, this is a piece of ignoring and running away that many ignorers and running away here have not been able to put up.
If the things you say are baseless, unsubstantiated and meaningless gibberish, then not ignoring your words is what prevents people from understanding you.
Come on, last try: Nissim, I wrote you a reply but it is delayed for an unknown reason. By the time it is released there will probably be another 200 comments here so try to remember to go back after the holidays and look for my explanation if it still interests you.
or in other words miracles,
Your argument implies that if we toss a coin it will never hit the floor, which contradicts what we see in reality.
Miracles,
I told you mathematically I completely agree with you and it really reminds me of the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise:
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/הפרדוקסים_של_זנון
Actually, it is implied from your words that there is no possibility to get from point A to B (for example from Tel Aviv to Haifa) because there are infinite points on the way... so how will you pass them while it is not infinite?
But again, if we ignore for a moment the mathematics of the matter, the coin did hit some point on the floor when it fell, because otherwise it would not have stopped... So if we go back in time to the moment of the toss, you can no longer say that the chance of the coin falling on that point is 0, because we already know that Not true, she did fall for her!
Israel Shapira,
Even with me and with Nissim, the name and details are not saved, we have to type it every time (same as with Tzipsif on the platform) maybe talk to Avi Blizovsky.
I try to answer but blocked. What is up?
A pending response, probably because I tried to incorporate some math into it.
Ok, let me rephrase - the very mathematics of the sequence (nothing to do with physics) requires defining a precision for a continuous distribution, although this precision is infinitesimal. That is, you were right in that the probability of a point is 0, and you were right in that if we measure with a ruler with an accuracy of 1 nanometer or 1 femtometer or 1 Planck or Whataber length, we will get a result that is not 0. What I thought you were missing, and maybe I just misunderstood, is that without any A connection to a ruler or to a person who measures - the very fact that you have defined a continuous probability space means that every point in it has "accuracy", although this accuracy is infinitesimal. That is, there is simply no meaning to the mathematical question "What is the probability of getting a value x for a continuous random variable?" Without anything to do with rulers or humans etc. Mathematically, the question is well defined only for "What is the probability of getting a value inside an open sphere around the point x of radius dx for the continuous random variable?".
Albanzo
I think that's what I said, and I don't see where I'm wrong. I gave an example earlier that if you want a certain precision (not zero) then you can calculate the probability. In the example I gave - in a room of 4 meters in each axis and an accuracy of mm then the probability is 1/16,000,000.
Isn't that what you're saying?
And I, and everyone, are very happy that you are getting involved!
for miracles and friends,
Forgive me for interfering, but regarding the probability - miracles, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You said many correct things but you are missing one important detail that sets the whole thing in order, and it concerns the continuity feature.
So let's assume a uniform distribution (where the probability of each event is according to its volume in the probability space, i.e. for N possibilities the probability is indeed 1/N). It is certainly true that in the distribution of a continuous variable the probability of each point is 0 (assuming that the distribution is not atomic, but it seems to me that for the sake of discussion it can be assumed), but for a continuous random variable the point value is not well defined. That is, it is not at all something related to classical physics or quantum physics - even in mathematics, which is not at all interested in all this contingent physics, a single value of a continuous random variable is not really well defined, but only an environment of a point (an open sphere). An intuitive way to understand this is that 1 and 0.9999999 (where the number of digits 9 goes to infinity) are exactly the same point. That is, without having anything to do with physics, for a continuous random variable it is not possible to define a value that is a point but at the very least an infinity-like environment. This is the whole basis of the theory of continuous probability in which we work with a probability density function and not with a probability function (exactly for this reason - the probability of a point is a meaningless quantity, but the infinitesimal density is not). Again, I emphasize - all these things were developed long before people knew what quantum mechanics was, and it is simply related to the definition of the continuum.
So in summary, the probability of falling at a certain point x is 0 but the probability of falling in the vicinity (however small) of the point x is not zero, and that is what needs to be asked - classical as well as quantum.
Israel
Marie Gell-Mann said that what is not impossible must happen.
And if there are an infinite number of planets, then by the same reasoning, there are an infinite number of planets that have life on them.
Shmulik
It really is possible that our world is not continuous. It also constitutes a solution to Zeno's paradox (paradox of immobility).
The problem with probability is a problem of understanding. Probability does not speak of what was - and this is a common mistake among evolution deniers of all kinds. Evolution speaks only of what will be.
The meaning of "probability 0" is this: let's choose a point on the floor, let's say (0.4, e). Well - what is the probability that we will now toss a coin and it will land exactly on this point? The probability is 0.
It's just like asking "What is the probability that I will now roll a dice and it will land on 5?".
If I now find a die - there is no meaning to the question "What is the probability that the die now shows a 3?". I have no idea how she was placed on the floor, so I can't talk about the probability of a certain situation.
To talk about the past, you need to use Bayes theorem, and for this you need knowledge. And in the famous case of DNA, we still don't have all the knowledge.
Miracles,
If we think of a completely classical world that does not stand on quantum legs, then we can insist and say that it does not matter that *we* do not know the location because it is enough that the coin is placed in a certain location. Nature knows where the coin is. I conclude from this that the chance of this is greater than zero (because I see the coin) and this leads me to the conclusion that the basic assumption that space is continuous is incorrect or that the theory of probabilities is incorrect.
I see no other solution
we
Maniacs, this whole unit, maniacs.
No one wants to help Shabbak save the details on the computer.
Nishim Yariv and Chipsif over the platform.
Maybe this is really the solution to the question of spontaneous, infinite creation?
Because if we have infinite planets, then it is almost certain that at least one of them will have entropy reversed enough to create a living cell that reproduces itself, right?
And that's the heart of the problem, isn't it?
It was intended for Shmulik of course...
rival
I agree that in the quantum world the question has no meaning. A standing coin position is not defined in the quantum model.
In the classical world, the location is indeed determined by nature. But, that only moves the problem back in time. We have no way of knowing exactly the starting conditions - because again we are in the continuous world. We have no way of measuring any continuous value.
rival
We know that we will fall on "some" value with 100% probability. You don't have to flip the coin for that, do you?
Tell me - which part do you disagree with in the following sentence: "The probability of getting a certain value in choosing one of N members is one divided by N".
Miracles,
"How do we know exactly what value the coin fell to? It will take us an infinite amount of time, because you have to check an infinite number of digits.'
But even without checking, we know ***for sure*** that the coin fell to some value, how can we say that the chance of it falling to that value was 0?
miracles, rival,
I think this is where the discussion should go:
Apparently nature has calculated for us the location of the coin's fall, but in practice the coin does not have a defined location because it is a collection of atoms that are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics and then, in principle, there is no defined location. Otherwise, if we insist on speaking in classical language, then the fact that the coin fell in a specific place contradicts the assumption of continuous space.
Makes sense?
rival
How do we know exactly what value the coin fell to? It will take us an infinite amount of time, because you have to check an infinite number of digits.
If you want to block the number of digits, that is something else - then we will have a separate world.
Miracles,
"Now - with what odds are you willing to bet that the component of X that the coin will fall into will be exactly e? I mean - how many times would you have to toss a coin to be sure you won?'
But in my opinion the case we are talking about here is different, because we have already tossed the coin, we know that it fell exactly on the value e, so how can we say that the chance of this was 0 if we know for sure that it did happen?
AP,
"The pattern of the waves in the water existed in the properties of water and rain.
The information here did not exist anywhere prior to its formation, unless you claim that a random collection of letters can turn itself into text as the text of your response. A random jumbled collection of letters does not contain any information by force about any text that should be generated from it by itself. A collection of letters contains information about itself as it is only.
I didn't fully understand your explanation, according to you the wave pattern existed before in the properties of water and rain, but the information in DNA also existed before in the molecules from which DNA is formed... DNA can be translated into something (for example into proteins) but the wave pattern in water can also be translated into something (Also for proteins! Why not actually?).
In the meantime, you have not shown me any fundamental difference between the information that exists in the waves in the puddle and the information that exists in DNA, both existed before in a different form, and both can be translated into something else.
rival
The odds are smaller than any number you can think of, right?
One of the ways to understand probability is through gambling. In the case of the room, (with an accuracy of a meter) - be ready to bet on any number over 1:16. For example - you put NIS 100 on one of the squares, and you will get NIS 1700 if you chose correctly. Think of it this way - if you put NIS 100 on each square. You will always leave with a profit of NIS 200.
Now - if what odds are you willing to bet that the X component that the coin will fall into will be exactly e? That is - how many times will you have to toss a coin to be sure that you won?
rival,
The wave pattern in the water existed in the properties of water and rain.
The information here did not exist anywhere prior to its formation, unless you claim that a random collection of letters can turn itself into text as the text of your response.
A random jumbled collection of letters does not contain any information by force about any text that should be generated from it by itself.
A collection of letters contains information about itself as it is only.
Up,
"The exact wording: information cannot develop and grow by itself.
To be created by itself from its absence is also not possible. Sometimes it seems as if information is created by itself, but some of the information that exists is actually found and some is by force.
So what is the difference between the pattern of waves that the rain created in the puddle, and the pattern of letters that exists in our DNA? It seems then that both can be created without God's help...
Miracles,
I agree with what you said about the level of accuracy, but if we go back to the example of the single coin, it still fell on some point in x, y, didn't it?
Let's say he fell on a point whose X is 3.14159265 and an infinite number of other digits, and whose Y is 2.71828 and an infinite number of digits further on. Can it be said that this particular point where the coin hit is a point where before the toss the chance of the coin falling exactly on it was 0? If so, how come he still fell for her? He had no chance...
To the opponent,
The exact wording: information cannot develop and grow by itself.
To be created by itself from its absence is also not possible. It sometimes seems as if information is created by itself, but some of the information that exists is actually found and some by force.
Like watching a DVD movie. What you are watching at this moment is a small part of what the DVD (reality) contains in force.
In particular, creating information from nothing is impossible.
By information I mean assumptions and conclusions. (scroll back to my answer to A)
walking dead,
Write (ep) and not another nickname.
In my discussion with Yariv and A. I explained with examples why information cannot develop and grow by itself. (scroll back)
Information that grows by itself is essentially out of thin air. A simple logical contradiction and that's all.
Your question about genes - genes encode information, for example, about the heart, its engineering, electrical structure, function, etc.
Evolution is the development of information. Information is the object of evolution. He is discussed when discussing evolution.
Therefore, understanding each and every gene at the level of planning represented by them is necessary for understanding evolution.
That's why I wrote "If you can't know how a creative process is actually carried out and what is the underlying body of knowledge necessary to understand it, you don't understand it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Attributing it to randomness is demagoguery.”
Your questions 1-3 are more expressions of bewilderment than questions. They are not my concern. They are directed from the questioner to himself, who must answer them to himself. I told you - we don't argue about a point of departure. You accept or you don't (you accept the opposite).
"That you are not able to explain yourself clearly..." - Regarding my faith, I did not intend to go into details.
Regarding what the others said, it's irrelevant to me, having clarified myself several times on the same subject. If, despite my explanations, someone claims that we don't understand, then they don't understand. He doesn't have to understand.
The main thing is that he is looking for the truth, otherwise this is an unsolvable short in communication.
You can tell yourself stories about how unclear my words are to me, it's nonsense. They do not touch the content of my words and show that you did not try to understand them properly.
Again, all the reasons for the words have already been written before, which you ignore and complain about.
rival
One should be careful in understanding the word "information". Physically, information is not created, it just moves from place to place.
If I send you my DNA sample, you have received information, I have not lost any information - yet no new information was created.
And if a certain species undergoes evolution - its DNA contains more information, but this information comes from the environment, and as in the previous case - no new information is created.
rival
It was worth asking the question - because it shows the mistake. "Extremely weak" is not a concept in science. You were supposed to answer "How precisely do you want the location?". Let's say the room is 4 x 4 meters and we measure at the level of a relief. There are 400 marbles in the room, so the probability is 1:400.
Oh, but I want an accuracy of a millimeter, so answer me - "The answer is 1:16,000,000
Ummm... I meant nanometer - "of course... and that my answer is 1 in 16 million trillion.
A rival - and if I want to know exactly? You remember - that's what I asked...
The point is - if we assume a continuous space, then the probability of each point is simply 0.
AP,
"Information cannot be created by itself"
Why not? Rain falls on a puddle and creates a certain pattern of waves on its surface that tomorrow can be used as input for a computer program. Is the wave pattern that the rain created not information? Isn't this self-generated information?
Miracles,
Although you gave an example that in my opinion only complicates instead of simplifying, I will answer you - there is a chance that this will happen, albeit a very slight one (let's say the coins are exactly the same and we threw them in exactly the same way with the same force and at the same angle).
rival
The problem is in the understanding of the concept of probability. I will ask you a guiding question - I tossed a coin, and now you toss.
What is the probability that both coins landed in exactly the same place?
Miracles,
"Therefore the probability of getting a certain point (any point on the floor) is 1 divided by infinity, therefore - 0"
It sounds a bit like a paradox, after all we know that practically (if we forget about the math for a moment) the coin did fall on a certain point on the floor, so how is it possible that the probability of it falling on this certain point was 0? Do you agree with me that if the probability of her falling on the spot she fell on was 0, she wouldn't have fallen on it?
Oh, I think I remembered. You're the guy who thinks he's a physicist even though he doesn't really know any physics and uses terms he made up for himself but is never willing to explain what he means by them. Yes? Is it okay if I keep calling you Ephraim?
'I'll be satisfied that my words are understood by myself'
Yes, this is the starting point for everything, excellent.
'Information cannot be created by itself'
Why exactly? Beyond that it's what you decided you wanted it to be.
'There is no need for a long and complex discussion to understand and that's what I explained here'
There is no need for a long and complex discussion to understand that you assume what you supposedly prove? Yes, you are actually right about that point.
'If you cannot know how a creative process is actually carried out and what is the underlying body of knowledge necessary to understand it, you do not understand it.'
I think you are confused, you didn't answer the question at all. You should have explained why you think it is necessary to know how each specific gene encodes information about each organ that is necessary or significant in some way to confirm evolution. You didn't. Why?
'You have no idea what you're talking about. Attributing it to randomness is demagoguery.'
I think you are confused again. You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know what evolution is and it seems you've never bothered to try to understand either.
'Regarding my faith it says that there is one absolute, unchanging, indivisible, eternal truth.'
1) Why would you think that?
2) Why would you think this is true?
3) Do you think this assumption has any meaning?
'It's a real starting point, in my opinion.'
I also have a real starting point. She says that I don't see someone's words as truth without him being able to speak coherently and consistently and reason and explain his words and give corroborating evidence for his words.
Are you interested in moving in this direction? Because so far, all you do is throw out statements that you are telling the absolute truth and that we should accept it even though you are unable to explain yourself clearly to anyone but yourself. Don't know how to tell you this but usually when someone is unable to explain themselves clearly to others it is because they are unable to understand what they are trying to say themselves.
rival
When I toss a coin there is a 1/2 probability of getting a certain side (let's say a tree) because there are two sides.
When I roll a die there is a 1/6 chance of getting a 4, because there are six sides.
Tossing a coin on the floor is choosing X and Y on the floor. There are an infinite number of such values, so the probability of getting a certain point (any point on the floor) is 1 divided by infinity, therefore - 0.
Miracles,
'In my coin case, there are infinite dots on the floor. Therefore - the probability that the coin will fall precisely on a certain point is 0"
I didn't understand, could you explain? After I dropped the coin, it did hit a certain point on the floor and therefore its fall was stopped. Doesn't that mean that the probability of the coin falling on that particular point was not 0? (Because if it was like that, she wouldn't have fallen for her...).
I would appreciate it if you could explain this point.
Ups
Are you unable to answer simple questions?
Miracles,
You go around in circles. Trying not to understand the obvious and then asking about what you tried not to understand.
Read my words from the beginning (scroll back) and you will find answers to all your comments.
I will not repeat my words.
Sugar is not information, but our understanding of its structure, function and method of creation is information, and the novelty of its existence constitutes new information.
You are trying to create an idle discussion here and a waste of time.
Should I ask you that when you create new software you create new information, so you understand what idle discussion is?
I won't read the article now, it's too long. I will content myself with the fact that my words are understood by myself.
"As information cannot be created by itself, then DNA cannot be created by itself - therefore there must be an intelligent creator." As you quoted.
There is no need for a long and complex discussion to understand and I have explained this here (scroll back).
Why William Dembsky needed a long article, you probably know.
"You can't invent new concepts" - of course I can, William Dembski can and anyone who opposes him, and anyone can.
This is called thinking, understanding, knowing.
to "the walking dead",
(AP) This is an abbreviation for A.P.
If you cannot know how a creative process is actually carried out and what is the underlying body of knowledge necessary to understand it, you do not understand it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Attributing it to randomness is demagoguery.
Regarding my faith, she says that there is one absolute truth, absent of change, indivisible, standing forever.
This is a real starting point, in my opinion.
A starting point can be accepted or not accepted with the consequences of accepting or rejecting it.
Ephraim
"Proof is taking gene by gene and showing how they encode information about the structure of the brain or heart."
It would probably be very helpful to know, but why do you think it is necessary or has any significance in confirming evolution?
"In the next step they show how such information can be generated randomly."
it's already been done
"Until then, the theory of evolution is faith and false faith."
And a belief that has no confirmation, no evidence, and is riddled with self-contradictions (yes, this is the exact description of your belief) is not false, how exactly? And better how exactly?
Ups
You wrote "Belief in Darwin's Theory". Would you please explain to me what you don't see in this Torah? Can you point out to me one sentence from the "Origin of the Species" that does not make sense to you?
And I will ask another question. Do you agree that all the information needed to create a living being exists within the DNA (and the proteins in the cell)?
Following on from the interesting article previously given by Israel Shapira, here is a lecture by Prof. Dan Tofik on this very topic - how proteins could be formed spontaneously without a guiding hand and without the need for God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqU9KxytGDQ
Ups
You cannot invent new concepts and then draw conclusions from them. Well done - sugar is not information.
You are trying to use an argument you don't understand, an argument you heard from a Christian preacher. Let me help you:
William Dembski wrote that because DNA contains information, and because information cannot be created by itself, then DNA cannot be created by itself - therefore there must be an intelligent creator.
Before we learn why he is wrong - you should know what he is saying. For you my friend:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm
to my father,
You believe in a thing and vice versa.
Belief in Darwin's theory while making it one of the Creator's laws is not only logically and conceptually absurd, it leads to unbelief, and is nothing more than a man's game with himself anxious to admit to himself his perfect heresy.
PS: For the creation of life and its development by itself from matter alone, without intelligent intervention, with or without Darwin's theory, I will call spontaneous creation from matter.
Miracles,
"Evolution does not create new information"
. I will read new information about the system for creating sugar from sunlight, when before it did not exist in reality.
. To the Torah that allows the computer to perform arithmetic operations I will call new information compared to the period before its existence,
Simply having a brain that performs arithmetic operations demonstrates new information compared to the period before the formation of this ability or before its formation.
When the self-evident truth is called a lie in your mouth, then your message is that they will not turn and talk to you.
I will try to remember that.
Avi,
Hint - it's related to statistics, if you don't understand, ask.
Miracles,
Perhaps you can explain to my father why Louis Pasteur's experiment does not contradict abiogenesis.
Israel Shapira
I thought the person who said that was Tzipi (Comet). okay, well..
…once upon a time, they would be kept alone because they were defined in the first place…
Today, they have to be defined every time anew... and it's full of definitions... there are such and such and each has his own truth.
Ups
In evolution, no new information is created, and the process is not random.
Please, stop lying.
my father
You said Darwin believed in God.
Darwin said that Darwin does not believe in God.
What is not understood here?!?
There is no contradiction between God and evolution - because no religious person is able to define what God is. No religious person is willing to put his faith to the test - in my opinion - who is afraid that he will lose his faith.
It's legit to me. I have very religious friends and family. Everyone can believe what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
What is not legitimate is Ap's lies, or Raphael's hatred of the different.
Avi,
"Regarding spontaneous creation - the fact that there is no spontaneous creation, Louis Pasteur proved, not Darwin - his sterile jars are kept to this day in a museum in Paris as proof that nothing was created in them."
You are wrong, and if you don't understand why Nissim will explain to you, he understands a little about statistics.
my father
You don't understand what a theory is, you still don't understand what Darwin was talking about!!!
A theory, in science, is an explanation of the way something happens. The opposite of theory is practice.
Tell me - have you ever heard of a driving theory test? Can anyone prove that this is true? 🙂
When we have a proposal for an explanation of a phenomenon - this is called a hypothesis in science. Darwin proposed a hypothesis for a part of the phenomenon of evolution in nature which he called "natural selection". I already explained here that there are four conditions for evolution, and Darwin offered an explanation (hypothesis) for one of these conditions.
for miracles
Regarding Darwin's belief - it does not change the principle that there is no contradiction, God can exist together with Darwin's theory of evolution, even Darwin thought what he thought, and what he said does not necessarily mean that he did not believe in God, some have also said that the good God could not have caused the holocaust … This does not mean that they stopped believing in God.
I think it depends on what kind of god you believe in. (What is your definition of God) If Darwin thought that God is not the Christian Jesus who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven and rules from there the Christian Pope as doing his exclusive word then I absolutely agree with him.
Lapp
I accept the opinion of Professor Leibovitz who claimed that God did not descend on Mount Sinai to give the people of Israel a lesson in history or biology.
The commandments and laws given on Mount Sinai and by the prophets were given to the Jews for a purpose written in the Torah after many commandments the reason is written: "for the sake of the body" and the prophets also explain their purpose.
The reasons are for longevity - as a people and as a society... that is, if you keep the mitzvot you will live as a successful society and a successful nation - and nothing more.
On the other hand, the God I believe in is an infinite God, a God not only of the people of Israel but of the entire universe, an almighty God who never makes mistakes and is the one who governs nature, and sets the laws of nature, therefore all the laws of physics and nature are subject to God, and therefore The one who naturally believes in miracles and sorcerers... is the one who doubts the unlimited ability and infinity of God and his laws - because the laws of nature are God's laws and their violation is a violation of God's laws. (the one I believe in anyway)
That is why I do not see any contradiction between creation and evolution - a God that I am from nothing can do both.
Regarding spontaneous creation - the fact that there is no spontaneous creation, Louis Pasteur, not Darwin, proved - his sterile jars are kept to this day in a museum in Paris as proof that nothing was created in them. Darwin only pointed to a method / law - like the laws of physics, which I think is a law of the God I believe in.
my father
I will say again - Darwin clearly wrote that he does not believe in God, and he also explained why. I didn't call you a liar - I wrote that what you wrote was a lie - and it's a lie! Here is one famous quote:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars...
to Raphael,
agreed upon.
I wrote here: "The proof is that you take gene by gene and show how they encode information about the structure of the brain or heart.
In the next step we show how such information can be generated randomly.
Until then, the theory of evolution is a belief and a false belief."
to my father,
Before Darwin, people were divided in their opinion between those who believed that life had always existed and those who believed in a creator.
The common denominator was the existence of consciousness and the dispute was between those who believed that spirit originated and that matter originated.
After Darwin the distribution changed between those who believed that life arose from matter spontaneously, and those who believed that there was an eternal creator.
The common denominator was that life was created. and the controversy over the method of creation and its cause.
Anyone who thinks that it is possible to bridge the theory of evolution and the theory of creation is pretending to be a disbeliever in the existence of the Creator.
There is no compromise and no mediation.
The Creator is the Absolute that exists in all, that is all, one, eternal and infinite, there is no other.
Imposing the role of life creation on inanimate matter without life is heresy in the existence of the Creator as Creator.
In this view, life is inanimate matter that has taken shape.
They are not an aspect of the Spirit of the Creator that has taken form.
In this view, no relation to his presence is possible.
In this view, the existence of a creator has no role. His existence is not the purpose of life and creation.
Observance of mitzvot in this context is an extremely strange and meaningless thing.
Such an opinion empties faith of any content. Who sees the human mind as a mere creation of matter distorts and distorts faith from its foundation.
who lowers the human spirit to the level of matter, there is no lower than that.
Those who think that God waited until matter happened to become an animal make God Almighty dependent on the randomness of matter.
Make God incompetent and limited. Make the random matter independent of the Creator since randomness does not depend on anything.
They do not perceive that randomness is not possible as part of the concept of God who is the cause of everything.
The concept of God stands in complete contradiction to the concept of randomness which is its complete opposite. God is the absolute cause of all.
There cannot be two creators, one of which is randomness. This is complete nonsense.
It has already been said: "Thus says the Lord, what did your fathers find wrong in me, for they turned away from me and went after vanity and wasted themselves." (Jeremiah XNUMX)
Regarding what I wrote about Darwin a few days ago (from many messages here it was pushed down and I only saw it now) - I admit to a mistake, I did not lie on purpose (as Nissim claimed), I simply remembered the origin of species and forgot the book Origin of Man.
On the other hand, I remembered an article about Darwin's life and the debate he had with the Christian Church and the hesitations he had to publish his articles, (not everything is written in Wikipedia), I remember well that he was indeed a man of faith (he even studied as a teacher) and did not want to quarrel with the Church and suspended the publication of the books But after others created the argument and the fight with the church and stirred up the polemic, he was forced to publish his opinion, I admit that I do not remember the details, I remember that he did not want to publish and his wife was involved in the publication of his books.
But this does not contradict the main thing that Darwin was not an atheist and did not want to align with the church or prove that religion is wrong, others took his teachings and inflated it into an anti-religious argument.
If you want, you can also accept the process of evolution within the religious story of creation.
Ups
As someone with experience on this site. Know that as soon as the miracles and a friend of his people start calling you by humiliating nicknames it means that they have run out of tools to deal with you on the level of knowledge and logic.
In addition - instead of drawing a line between religion and science as the Rambam tried to do, people continue to defend the prejudices and the mistaken Pharisees of the Scriptures because of the cult of personality of rabbis that forbids saying that they were wrong, hearing that this would undermine the foundations of their religion.
On the other hand, courageous religious people such as Maimonides, Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Kafah, the founder of the Dardaim movement, and others sought to draw a line between science, that is, between the reality they see and religion.
One of the Pharisees I like on the subject was said by Professor Leibovitch - he claims that the Torah and religion were not given in order to teach science or history. He said something like: "God did not come down on Mount Sinai to teach us a chapter in physics or history".
The idea is that the religion was given to the people of Israel in order to educate us in a correct life to unite the people and maintain a more stable and correct social and family life and the main thing of the religion is to observe the mitzvot and live according to the instructions of the religion and not the hocus pocus of Kabbalah and miracles and wonders and the supernatural.
Baruch Spinoza, even though it was argued against him that he is an atheist, he actually proves in a logical way that God exists (Book of Ethics, Chapter One).
He (Spinoza) also proves that the Pharisee rabbis (who are actually Sages) during the Second Temple period disrupted the Torah and the Bible and censored and cut and even changed everything that did not suit them and their perception at the time, and therefore we cannot today know what was really written and what was not (article theological - political).
For example: It may have been written that man was created from the monkey in the process of evolution...
The theory of evolution was a theory until the mechanism of heredity was discovered by Medel and later genes and DNA were discovered...
Today it is already possible to evolve bacteria in a test tube and prove that the mechanism works.
There is no longer any need to test the correctness of this mechanism.
The legitimate and logical debate can be about whether man evolved from the monkey or the monkey from man or both from an earlier creature, but clearly the development is by evolution.
And this should not contradict the theory of creation or religion because theoretically there could be both and for example creation that continued in evolution.
The Maimonides wrote in Morah Nabukim (XNUMX) that if we see something in nature and it appears on its face according to the Pharisees who are accepted by us, that it contradicts our understanding of the Torah, apparently we did not correctly interpret the verse in the Torah and we must check the interpretation and look for the correspondence and not deny the truth that is revealed us in science.
Shit, looks like I taught him a new word. Not that he uses it right, but still…
Ups
It's a shame you write such things. You're an idiot anyway - but why brag about it?
You asked and received answers.
If you don't agree, that's your opinion. Everyone will choose for themselves what makes sense to believe.
The theory of evolution is an accepted lie.
. It is unlikely that the day will come when most scientists will deny it. Not because of a new finding, or a new fact that will be discovered, but because it is an agreed upon lie.
When it arrives, they will say that they have always claimed that life is the fruit of reason, and they will deny the millions of books, studies and "invented facts", "that leave no doubt as to its correctness".
Now the absolute majority of evolutionary scientists suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect while convincing themselves that their opponents suffer from the same effect, so it is with liars.
You'll be thankful for that too.
The collective delusion called Darwin's theory will reach its certain end.
. In regard to the beginning of life, it was taken out of the realm of evolutionary theory arbitrarily and deliberately.
Anyone who does not know how the building blocks of the pyramids were formed in the Straits, does not have established knowledge about how they were formed.
When the foundation stones are taken out of the calculation, then the whole edifice of knowledge is shaky. In the same way, the entire scientific edifice of the theory of life is shaky and unfounded.
. I never wrote that evolution does not exist. I wrote the opposite. Read my response on the previous page.
. Physicists are not liars, unlike most evolution scientists, but when a physicist believes in 'yes' = 'no', he betrays logic. In fact he is wrong in distinguishing between interpretation and facts.
What is it similar to? For a cartoon that contains all the scientific facts, whose cartoon scientists are consumed by the assumption that something was created out of nothing and vice versa.
In fact, no void exists and no one exists in their world, since their whole world is a picture (or a dream, if you will) that does not really exist.
One last thing - everything I wrote is from myself and my personal opinion. You are welcome to search Christian sites that only bear a faint resemblance.
we
I'm not sure about the sfgshsrfdbker, but there's no doubt that supercalifragilisticexpialidocious was created by Mary Poppins.
Well, maybe tell me what to do to save the details? They used to be saved on their own, now they are not, even on Macs, PCs, iPads and iPhones.
And with you?
Albanzo
The problem is, those who are affected by this effect cannot be aware of it…..
Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ups
Too bad you didn't read "The Origin of Species". Darwin does not talk about the beginning of life at all, and he emphasizes this. It disappoints me that you don't know such important things.
Next - the argument that "the strong survive" is wrong, and again your opinion shows nothing more than a lack of understanding of the most basic things. In order for evolution to occur, 4 conditions are needed: culture, variation, competition and heredity. Darwin's claim is that the factor of competition is natural selection. that's it.
Evolution assumes nothing - evolution is an observed phenomenon. Even the darkest religious should have no objection to the fact that we are witnessing that species have changed throughout history.
I will ignore all your ramblings about quantum theory, because you have no idea what you are talking about. There are events that happen for no reason - again, this is an observation that there is no point in debating. You don't really think all fiscals are stupid liars, do you?
What you said about a virus is based on what you are trying to prove……
Regarding the virus culture - what you describe does not belong to what I said. A virus is exactly between "not alive" and "alive".
Say - is your faith so weak that you have to rely on lies from Christian preachers?
Ephraim
B is not an expert in anything, and certainly not an expert in calculating probabilities of life creation. Everything he writes here is the same nonsense he read on the website of Christian creationists which is completely wrong and we have already explained here dozens if not hundreds of times why it is nonsense.
Up,
"Darwin's theory which means creation from nothing; Life from their absence'
Again you show your ignorance, Darwin's theory (the theory of evolution) does not say anything about how life was created, where did you come up with that? Did you read it on the site of converts?
Up,
"Darwin's theory which means creation from nothing; Life from their absence'
Again you show your ignorance, Darwin's theory (the theory of evolution) says nothing about how life originated, where did you come up with that? Did you read it on the site of converts?
Miracles,
1. Contact B. He is an expert in the field.
2.
. Darwin's theory which means creation from nothing; living from their absence.
which assumes the desired, when it assumes that the survivors are suitable, and the suitable survive with the help of random mutations.
This is not a contradiction but a logical fallacy and this is also the reason that Darwin's theory is not subject to the principle of scientific refutation.
It is not possible to disprove a method that assumes what is desired using facts that contradict it.
From the moment Darwin's theory became a scientific theory, the scientific method contradicts itself.
. that information can grow and develop by itself according to the theory of evolution.
. According to the field theory, the creation of virtual particle pairs exists from the void and there is none.
. The creation of the universe from nothing.
(The total energy of the universe at the beginning was zero since gravity, matter and energy exactly cancel each other out, and this according to general relativity, in fact even at this moment)
. between general relativity and quantum theory.
. A reason for the absence of a reason. The concept of a random event that has no cause and cannot possibly have a cause. Appears mainly in quantum theory.
. that a particle can exist simultaneously in different places.
. that quantum probability has the meaning of a fact (according to the theory of the multiple histories of the universe).
. that an object (material) can become a subject (consciousness).
. Scientific truth relies on the senses, without senses there is no science. That is, it is not in possession of truth.
. there's more.
3. In order for a virus to survive as a DNA segment only, at the beginning of its evolutionary journey, it had to have a protein and a complex action plan that it did not possess.
4. A complex development is a multi-stage development, where at each stage a new form of function is added to the previous ones in a purposeful way, that is, in a way that promotes a defined final goal;
Referring to the virus: its survival, culture and destruction of the host's defense mechanisms.
Israel
by time travel
rival
You are right, but the point:
"3 significant developmental steps were required to get from the initial peptide to the functioning modern protein. The accelerated evolution lasted about 5 months, while in nature it probably took several million years.'
Appears in the original highlighted in blue, that's why I preferred it..
How do I make the computer save my details instead of entering them every time?
Israel Shapira,
Thanks, really interesting.
By the way, the article was also published on the science website:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-proteins-born-1210163
rival
http://heb.wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/איך-חלבון-נולד/מדעי-החיים
And why do I have to enter the name and email again every time?
Ups
1. Explain to me, if you can, how you calculate the probability of creating life in a natural way.
2. Show me one contradiction in the way of scientific thinking.
3. Please give me for reference that there is a contradiction between viruses and evolution (hint: there is no contradiction).
4. Explain to me what "complex development" is.
I'll settle for one of the points if it's difficult for you...
Miracles,
My intention was the opposite of yours and that is that the probability of life and its development has the meaning of being able to verify/refute evolutionary theories.
"And you can't use a certain way of thinking to show that that way of thinking is wrong."
If the way of thinking is inconsistent, or contains contradictions, or is incomplete, it is inevitable.
Viruses are not supposed to exist according to the theory of evolution.
It has been hypothesized that they originate from jumping DNA segments that have undergone complex development. But this "complex development" cannot be explained.
Israel Shapira,
If you want, you can give the title of the article here in the meantime and Google will bring us to the article.
rival
Waiting patiently, it is explained how they imitated and accelerated natural processes of turning amino acids into proteins.
"And put them together under the proteins" =
"And put them together under a microscope for proteins."
Laitza = to the floor.
Miracles,
1. If I understood correctly in the link you gave it says that scientists synthesized (ie designed and created) proteins manually, planned. They took amino acids and put them together under proteins. But I think B's question was how such proteins are formed naturally, without someone intelligent assembling them, how in nature amino acids can connect to functional proteins.
2. I didn't understand your coin example, let's say that you dropped the coin into Izpa and out of the infinite number of points there it landed on point 25724. Doesn't this mean that before the toss it did have a chance (greater than 0) of falling on this point?
Ups
By the way - a virus is an inanimate substance that becomes alive, and it is not the only one.
Ups
Beautiful - therefore there is no point in talking about the probability of the formation of life.
In general - it is ridiculous to use scientific considerations to show that science is wrong. Science is a way of thinking, and you cannot use a certain way of thinking to show that that way of thinking is wrong.
Miracles,
"If something is not possible, then there is simply no probability that it will happen." - This is the meaning of probability 0.
For example, what is the probability that a coin will land on both sides? 0.
If something surely must happen, or surely must not happen, but nevertheless it does not happen, or does happen, respectively, then something in the assumptions or calculation is incorrect.
A. Probability is designed to deal with reality, and if it is useless in reality, then it is unnecessary.
If an event happened, then the probability before it happened must be greater than zero, if the calculation is correct.
so:
. Or reality is not made up of dots.
. Either or that probability theory is not built to handle an infinite sequence.
. Or a point is an abstract concept that does not exist in reality.
Choose the appropriate one. In any case the calculation must be greater than zero.
Miracles
A similar link is waiting for me.
ב
Just for you - don't look at Israel!!!!
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2011/01/06/princeton-scientists-construct-synthetic-proteins-sustain-life?section=re
ב
Indeed, an imprecise wording that was corrected in the following sentence to "could possibly become".
See:
http://heb.wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9A-%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D
"They started with a peptide (blade) that was about 50 amino acids long, and let it evolve in vitro. This is a method in which the scientists create different molecular sequences, which are exposed to mutations and undergo "improvement" generation after generation. The method allows, in fact, to have a kind of accelerated evolution. This is how they managed to reproduce the process that apparently took place in nature: a peptide ("blade") of about 50 amino acids underwent spontaneous assembly, until the formation of a protein with a contemporary structure, consisting of about 250 amino acids. Tracking the process has also allowed scientists to understand what forces shape the process of creating an intact primary protein.
Later, the members of the research group examined bacterial genomes, and discovered in them clear evidence of the existence of an evolutionary process very similar to the one they had in the laboratory experiment of duplication and conjugation of short molecular sequences.
.
3 significant developmental steps were required to get from the initial peptide to the functional modern protein. The accelerated evolution lasted about 5 months, while in nature it probably took several million years.'
A.P.
The quote is from "The Law of the Second Law of Thermodynamics". See part one:
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3
Second part - if there is demand.
Experiments continue all the time but it is difficult to get an unequivocal result. Don't forget - the speed of light..
Israel, since when do amino acids become protein by themselves? Have you ever encountered a protein-infested environment on Earth? And even if if you had an entire ocean infested with amino acids (of all kinds, yes?), and even if at every moment about a trillion polypeptide chains were received (in the night's dream when the stars came out), then in a billion years you would scan perhaps a trillion of the possibilities for one small protein. So what will help you reduce the chances which are zero anyway?
Ups
It's not true what you say. If something is not possible, then there is simply no probability of it happening.
A probability of 0 means that the sample space is infinite (and the number of samples is finite). In the case of my coin, there are infinite points on the floor. Therefore - the probability that the coin will fall precisely on a certain point is 0.
The point to understand is that probability does not tell what happened if we do not know the size of the sample space (or the number of samples).
Miracles,
I also think you are thinking irrationally, where would you find so many monkeys? And where will you all store?
It did not make sense to me.
No':
Information is assumptions and conclusions derived from them. And the conclusions serve as new assumptions...
That information cannot grow by itself means that the existing knowledge cannot create from its assumptions new assumptions that are not included in its definitions.
For example, the definition of the properties of an organ and its functions are not included in the pulp of its cells per se, therefore neither the organ nor its definition can be created from the collection of its cells. Likewise, a radio receiver cannot be created from the collection of its components, and likewise, a program that calculates prime numbers cannot be created by itself from a program that calculates even numbers.
(this is logic)
for miracles:
A probability of 0 means that something is not possible. Therefore if a coin does fall on the floor and you claim a probability of 0, then something in your reasoning is flawed.
If you write a program that will write a story that will win the Nobel Prize in Literature, you will win the Nobel Prize.
To Israel:
Where is the quote from (which sums up the issue nicely) about "the second law and the professor"? and updated us on the results of the grandiose experiment.
Ups
What does "information cannot develop by itself" mean?
Of course he can!
Maybe you mean meaningful information and that's not true either.
One can also ask what is the probability that cardinal points will form the face of Christ. An extremely slim chance (even if less slim than one might think at first) and yet I hope you don't think that a higher power has created a mold in the shape of Jesus on toast. If so, so that you hurry to the nearest church and ask to convert to Christianity.
Israel
An old Mel Brooks movie once had a super segment
"Jews in Space", so maybe they are finally back?
Nice
What would you do if tomorrow extraterrestrials arrive for their first visit to Israel and it turns out that they are..
Good night.
Israel
There is no connection between probability and finding life. There is no direct connection at all between probability and the formation of life - and the reason is that in order to know what the probability of a phenomenon is, you need to know the size of the space, and what the distribution is.
Life was created - we know that for sure. We have no reason to think that a "higher power" is needed for the formation of life, and we have many reasons to believe that a higher power is not needed (you explained it well).
Evolution is a wonderful explanation for everything we see, and today there is nothing it cannot explain. Who needs more? 🙂
Nice
Tell that to a Technion student (who is probably a Technion lecturer by now).
The truth is I believe no one knows. Do you have confidence that in which country match among those that are discovered in the morning news has developed life? Or will one ever be found? So what does the probability say about that?
See all the repeated discussions on the site on the subject. Raphael is right, no one succeeds in convincing the other, because there is nothing to convince either.
Israel
The Moby Dick book has a million letters. What is the probability that a transparent person will randomly type Melville's wonderful book? 26 to the power of 1,000,000. There is no way that will happen you say... And I agree.
But - let's make 3 concessions. The first is that I want a beautiful book with 1,000,000 letters, but it doesn't matter if it's Moby Dick or any other book.
The second relief is that the monkey repeatedly tries to guess the next letter. Once he finds a letter that advances the story then he can move on to the next letter.
And the third relief is that there are many monkeys.
In how many steps will we have a Nobel Prize-winning work in literature?
If you think this is just a blown story - I worked on a system that had to automatically write a program a million bytes long (which is much more complex because there are 10 times more options for each byte). It took a few hours….
Israel
If I drop a coin on the floor, then the probability that it will land exactly where it fell is 0. Think about it…
Israel Shapira
Good morning from Israel (Not Shapira). Tal mi pliz… ahm ahm sorry, tell me please, is sfgshsrfdbker man made or nature made? I ask you, simply because I know you like tricky questions.
From "The Trial of the Second Law"
What causes the formation of life, and the formation of intelligent life in particular?"
"Well, evolution.." the law opened.
"To the DM, absolute nonsense!" The professor was now screaming at the top of his lungs. "Do you know the probability of the spontaneous formation of a single living cell capable of replicating itself? Zero, absolute zero!”
The audience demanded an explanation.
"Here" the professor removed his watch from his wrist and threw it furiously on the stand. "If you found this watch lying on the ground on some distant planet. Would you assume that the clock was created by itself through evolution? The forces of nature, through a completely random assembly of molecules? No, of course not. Someone had to create it.”
The crowd nodded in agreement.
"And are you ready to believe that a living, thinking, feeling, creating person, consisting of billions of cells, each of which is composed of a million times more than the clock, was created spontaneously without an external creator?"
Complete silence reigned in the hall.
"I can testify, as a mathematician, that the probability of such a perfect universe, as well as the probability of the spontaneous formation of life, is exactly equal to zero."
"Are you implying that..." The prosecutor's voice was hoarse with excitement.
"I'm not implying, I'm saying it explicitly. God Almighty is responsible for the amazing perfection of mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry, and as a result, biology. Because we are biological beings, we owe our lives to everything.”
The crowd cheered for a long time.
The law came to its senses. "Well, so be it, I don't intend to harm your freedom of belief. Good, there is a God! Can we go home already for God's sake?"
Nice
It's not that simple.
A Technion student who has some understanding of these matters, claimed at the time that in order for the entropy to reverse in a system of the magnitude of Avogadro's number, a time exceeding the duration of the existence of the universe (or the universe of existence? as you wish) must pass.
So doesn't this pose a challenge to the spontaneous creation of a person who creates a screw who cannot create spontaneously?
Please wait. Israel is just a small screw in the great cosmic order. Leaving existential questions for the boss, Nice and AP.
comprands?
Israel
But - when a person lacks a screw, he becomes like your friend the troll...
Inanimate matter did not turn itself into a person.
But inanimate matter does turn itself into amino acids - it happens even in space all the time.
And amino acids turn themselves into proteins.
And proteins can possibly turn themselves into plants or amoebas.
that turn into frogs.
that become Hasids.
which become... and… and…
In the end you will reach a person. By evolution.
Is this what really happened? Boss solutions. But there is a fundamental difference between a screw - which cannot be formed spontaneously, and a person who can.
And this despite the fact that man is much more complex.
A more accurate version of my words:
When someone believes that inanimate matter has transformed itself into a person, then it is clear that he is delusional.
This is what is meant and it is clear from the previous content of my words.
It is written that the Creator created the human body from matter. In other words, there are two reasons here: God + material and not one reason that is only material.
But the spirit is from God and not from matter and this is also written.
"And when you see an almighty in front of you, isn't it clear to you that someone made him?"
1. Omnipotence cannot be the result of anything. If he is caused he is not omnipotent.
2. It is about eternity. absolutely has no beginning and no end.
3. Your understanding or lack of understanding of the absolute subject (God) does not matter regarding the understanding that life is a product of reason.
"When you see footprints in the sand, you know someone made them"
And when you see an almighty in front of you, isn't it clear to you that someone made him?
Up,
"When someone believes that a person was created from inanimate matter, then it is clear that he is delusional"
Let's recall for a moment the book of Genesis, chapter XNUMX:
"And Jehovah God formed man, dust from the ground."
Wasn't it said about this - the wrongdoer is guilty of wrongdoing?
א
I did not write that my father is a liar - I wrote that what he writes is lies.
B.
No one asked you to become a firm believer in evolution. Just stop seeing it as "heretical talk"
Science will probably never say there is a God because God runs the world according to the laws of nature which allows each person to believe or not. I don't pretend to know why but if God wanted to he could talk to each of us and violate the laws of nature every day. But he didn't. Even on visible miracles there are commentators who say that they happened in a natural way like for example the water being taken out of the rock by Moses, Hazal say that there has always been water there.
Avi,
Quote from Wikipedia:
"Darwin waited 12 years until he dared to publish, in 1871, "The Descent of Man" in which he explicitly wrote that the origin of man and the ape is from a single ancestor."
Did he write or not write about the origin of man?
Why is the fact whether Darwin was an atheist related to the question of whether evolution contradicts Judaism or not?
And miracles, I don't think my father should be called a liar. He just writes what comes to his mind at that moment. Sometimes this is true and sometimes not. I stopped admonishing him for inaccuracy a long time ago. But in the spirit of things he is right, Darwin did not believe in God but my father is right that many rabbis do not see a problem with evolution. And most of the noise is made by converts.
"3, 4 - you will learn evolution, this is exactly what it explains, how animals develop without reason and without a guiding hand."
When we talk about evolution, we talk about the development of information. Information cannot develop by itself.
When someone believes that man was created from inanimate matter, then he is clearly delusional. When he adds countless details and descriptions to his belief, then it is clear that he is dealing in demagoguery, hallucinations and delusion - this is the theory of evolution.
When you see footprints in the sand, you know someone made them.
When you see broken glass (genes), you have no idea what they were before (eg a glass cup) and you cannot conclude that they will become a plate by themselves (genes of the current creature).
When you see a plate (the current creation) you don't imagine that glass fragments (past genes) created it by themselves.
But science claims to know that the genes of today (the current creature) were different in the past.
Science assumes that creatures that are composed of countless tracks and plates were created by themselves. Science calls fairy tales and miracles a scientific theory.
The proof of evolution should be in the details; Garden after garden, and nothing else, as I wrote before.
Until then, evolutionary scientists have no idea what it is about.
my father
Darwin was not a man of faith, and he made it clear several times.
Darwin wrote a lot about man, including a famous book.
May I ask why you wrote these things? You must know they are lies.
"3, 4 - you will learn evolution, this is exactly what it explains, how animals develop without reason and without a guiding hand."
When we talk about evolution, we talk about the development of information. Information cannot develop by itself.
When someone believes that man was created from inanimate matter, then he is clearly delusional. When he adds countless details and descriptions to his belief, then it is clear that he is dealing in demagoguery, hallucinations and delusion - this is the theory of evolution.
When you see footprints in the sand, you know someone made them.
When you see shards of glass, you have no idea what they were before and you cannot conclude that they will become a plate by themselves.
When you see a plate, you don't imagine that fragments of glass made it by themselves.
But creatures that are infinitely complex, you are ready to assume that they were created by themselves. This is hypocrisy, fairy tales and miracles.
The proof of evolution should be in the details; Garden after garden, and nothing else, as I wrote before.
Until then, evolutionary scientists have no idea what it is about.
Father, are you also aware of these words of Rabbi Kook:
"And in general we don't need to be so strict about the development method. There are certainly some glimmers of truth in it, but just as many falsehoods and imaginations" (Egrets Ha'Rai, Egret Keys, to Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov, Jaffa, Adar XNUMX -, credit to Wikipedia).
It is not that the Jewish religion opposes evolution
Darwin was a very religious man, and he did not write at all about the development of man and everything that religious people attribute to him, but what happened was that anti-religious preachers took a ride on evolution to try to deny the Torah, and on the other hand, certain preachers of repentance were caught for opposing the evolution of the Christian preachers.
The basic idea of evolution is written in the Torah and the Jewish Kabbalah, and wiser religious people actually found confirmation in religion for evolution.
As Rabbi Kook wrote:
"The theory of development, which is conquering the world now, is adapted to the world principles of Kabbalah, more than any other philosophical teachings.
— Orot HaKodesh 1938, The Theory of Development, p. Teklez, Rabbi Kook, XNUMX"
ב
And speaking of new species - are you aware that there is more than one species of human today?
ב
And regarding the creation of new species - this is done every day in the field of plants. Beyond that, 6 years ago they already created a new species of lizards.
Just, you know.
ב
Is my inability to do something a confirmation that God exists?
Rival, horses and donkeys belong to the same family, as do dogs and wolves. They can even produce offspring. That is, it is the same creature and not the development of a new family. Therefore there is no evolution here. I explained why it is also not possible to move from one family to another gradually. The explanation remains the same.
Miracles, if the eye is so poorly designed, feel free to create your own eye and replace it with the existing eyes you have. Then we'll see if you want to go back to the previous state or not. Are you able to create your own eye? If not, how do you criticize something that you yourself are not capable of?
Up,
1. You have a reading comprehension problem, you forgot to read the rest of the sentence:
"This is one of the overwhelming proofs of evolution, and there are many such, for example - dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys, apes and Homo sapiens, and basically any two species that can be traced back to their common ancestor."
This is the proof, the ability to trace the common ancestor of two species. The first part you quoted only explains why this happens.
2. "First random mutations happen and then selection according to the properties of the environment"
But natural selection is not random, so why do you keep insisting that it is a random process? It is a process that is partly random.
3, 4 - You will learn evolution, this is exactly what it explains, how animals develop without reason and without a guiding hand.
rival
Can't you see he's a stupid troll?
(ep)
This 'intelligence', if you noticed, also develops more and more over time...
It is the only thing (intelligence) that, since it was created, does not stop developing - but unlike other things in nature - intelligence only improves with time... interesting 🙂
1. "No proof of evolution." - The author of the article wrote it in his own words: "One of the overwhelming proofs of evolution."
2. "Evolution is not a random process" - first accidental mutations occur and then selection according to the properties of the environment.
That is, it is a random process that the theory of evolution assumes as the first step that contains the "correct" combinations of mutations. A baseless assumption.
In short - this is a random process and even if you say "not random" a million times and others repeat your words - it will remain random.
3. "Stupid and baseless belief". Say that a mosquito, a heart, a brain, a consciousness, were not created because of intelligence but from themselves.
that eyes were created without sight and ears without hearing. Blessed is the believer.
I leave here to everyone the choice of what to believe as stupid and baseless and what is based on reason and facts.
4. "Proof will be when you show us how your invisible intelligence causes creatures to change." - When something exists, there is no need to prove it.
When you see information/a creation of intelligence, you don't have to know how intelligence created it.
For example, you don't have to know how the F-35 was created in all its systems, to know that intelligence created it.
In short, intelligence created life and the "how" is irrelevant.
Up,
1. "When an original population separates into several populations due to terrain barriers, such as a river, islands or mountains, populations may be formed over time in which the individuals cannot mate with each other. This is one of the overwhelming proofs of evolution.'
This is not proof of evolution, it is only an explanation that shows how evolution works and how it creates new species.
2. "In the next step they show how such information can be generated randomly"
Evolution is not a random process, now you have proven that you have no idea what evolution is.
3. "What is real?" That the creatures have indeed changed and evolved over millions of years, but not by themselves but because of an intelligence that cannot be estimated."
This is not proof but a foolish and baseless belief. Proof will be when you show us how your invisible intelligence causes creatures to change.
"When an original population separates into several populations due to terrain barriers, such as a river, islands or mountains, populations may be formed over time in which the individuals cannot mate with each other. This is one of the overwhelming proofs of evolution"
This is not a proof but a belief and a false belief.
Proof is that they take gene by gene and show how they encode information about the structure of the brain or heart.
In the next step we show how such information can be generated randomly.
Until then, the theory of evolution is a belief and a false belief that there is no one who does not admit its falsity in his heart.
what is real Indeed the creatures have changed and evolved over millions of years, but not by themselves but because of an intelligence that cannot be estimated.
And what does this oblige you to do?
To believe that reality is fundamentally spirit. But you won't be able to admit it, because your pride won't let you.
In other words: the proof is in the details.
Creationists and evolutionists confuse each other because they both lie. The world was not created 6000 years ago and self-evolution without intervention and planning is complete nonsense.
The result is that they do not convince anyone and not even themselves.
Uncle
There is a very fundamental flaw in your perception.
A) A sentence like 'there is no proof for X' has no place when talking about science. At best there are confirmations in science. And evolution has a lot of confirmations. In fact, an infinite number of confirmations from a creator/reduced infinity (not that it is difficult compared to the 0 confirmations common to all of these together). Your parents and you alone are confirmation of evolution (by the way, if you are looking for a refutation, then if you don't have parents, you have done so).
b) You see everything around you as evidence of planning and creation. The problem is that you do not understand at all what are the things through which we identify planning. You may think that the great complexity of the animal world is evidence of design, but if so you are very mistaken, complexity is not evidence of design at all. In fact, the only organisms that we know of that have any support for design are those that we know for sure have been manipulated by humans.
c) Your claim regarding the logic of a creator/creator suffers from a failure of the requested assumption. All you do is assume there is a creator and from there simply decide that since you assumed it this creator exists and created everything.
d) When you say - 'It is that we fail to understand how the Creator is above the concepts of time and that he has always been and how is it that he does not need someone before him and how is it that there is no concept of "before him" at all. It's okay because we were indeed created under these limitations.' – You don't actually say anything of any significance and say you have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically making up an imagined meaningless concept and then saying you have no idea what meaning it has. There is a masturbation of meaninglessness here. that's it.
ב
Tell me, how many years have I been waiting for you to give me an example of one cell that is not sensitive to light? How long will I have to wait for the answer?
How do people have the infinite patience to grind the same topic over and over again? After all, it is clear that no one will succeed in convincing the other. Isn't it a waste of time?
ב
If God made the eyes, then why are they so bad? We don't see most of the things that endanger us...
Uncle
Why do you think God is good and almighty created the world? Can't you think of a better world?
ב
I am waiting for your example.
It's funny to me that you don't understand what you yourself are saying. I didn't say that a human fossil next to a dinosaur would disprove evolution! Fossils have no strong connection to evolution, it's just convenient that all the fossils found do confirm the theory. Darwin didn't need a fossil nose for his theory.
Regarding the evidence. First, there should be no survival advantage at every stage. There are many mutations that by themselves do not give an advantage. As long as they don't interfere with the creature to reproduce then everything is fine.
Beyond that, we know a lot about the eye. One thing is that the eye has evolved independently dozens of times. A good planner would not do such an ineffective thing.
Secondly, you need to differentiate between vision and sensitivity to light. We know that many bacteria are sensitive to light, so such a mechanism is useful.
Third thing - the basic mechanism of sensitivity to light is very simple and a very simple molecule is enough to enjoy this sensitivity.
Uncle
In science, the concept of "theory" is different than in everyday life. In science - theory is the opposite of practice. It is a set of rules used to understand how a phenomenon will develop, or how things were read. That's why there is "Newton's theory of gravity". And in my radar book there is a chapter called theory of operation.
In science there are also "hypotheses" - possible explanations for the phenomenon. For example, one of the explanations for the phenomenon of evolution is Darwin's natural selection. Today we think that this hypothesis is correct, because it matches the observations, provides predictions, and also - we understand what the mechanism is behind it.
You have no proof of the existence of a creator - this hypothesis does not explain anything, does not predict anything, and contradicts every law of nature that we know.
But - let's start with my question.
Uncle
We know for sure that you are the first person on the planet - what surprises you more?
The purpose of the question is to show you that your thinking is wrong. In particular, I want to show you that the idea that the world seems to be preparing is wrong.
Well - what is more surprising?
Professor Einstein was once asked if he believed in God, he said he believed in Spinoza's God.
According to Spinoza, God who is an inseparable part of the infinite universe and nature determines the laws of nature and manages them all the time, therefore there is no contradiction between God and the laws of nature or between God and evolution which is a law of nature and therefore also a law of God, and there is nothing above nature and God according to Spinoza as well Does not perform miracles because a miracle or unnatural thing is against the laws of God himself, and whoever believes in miracles or unnatural things is actually disbelieving in God's ability and finality.
Rival, no minimal eye will evolve in a million years. The model you are talking about is not scientific at all since it presupposes a survival advantage at each stage of the 1829 theoretical stages. And in this theoretical model they start with an existing and working eye as a starting point, with a mechanism that is sensitive to light, innervation, a mechanism for processing photons and more. A far cry from what is really required to prove that the eye could have evolved. Take for example the mechanism that synthesizes the "heme" molecule. Synthesis requires something like 7 special enzymes. Each of them is composed in itself. Deficiency of one of the enzymes may cause serious diseases (porphyria for example). So let's go big and assume that a person could survive with only about five enzymes out of the 7 to create minimal "them". Which means that at least 5 genes are required to encode a minimal "hem" synthesis mechanism. Or something like 5000 nucleotides. The supporters of evolution will of course argue that this mechanism probably evolved from another mechanism that preceded it. But what to do if there are no gradual steps from one biological system to another. For example, you will not be able to gradually change a mechanism for nucleotide synthesis into a mechanism for amino acid synthesis (since there is no direct structural connection between them). You will not be able to change a smell mechanism into a hearing or sight mechanism and so on.
Uncle,
"We know that the animals around us here on earth were not created by us but by God"
It's not exactly true, you and I know it's the truth but we still have to convince Nissim too, he's really stubborn.
Regarding the respiratory system, you jump too quickly from topic to topic, we are not done with the visual system yet. I already told you that according to science, less than 2000 steps are enough to create a sophisticated eye, a process that should take a period of time of less than a million years. What do you think about this?
Miracles,
First of all, I did not understand the purpose of this question.
And to the very question
We know that the animals around us here on earth were not created by us but by God. On the other hand, a paper clip is known to be a product of humans as a language
The Torah "which God created to do" God created the world and we are tasked to continue to create and do.
If I reach another planet and find animals (and by the way, there is no reason to think that there are no animals on distant planets) I am afraid that my admiration will not be great
(even though it should be) since I've already gotten used to seeing animals here on Earth and the mechanism of admiration wears out from habit. (Like I'm not surprised at all
A new day at sunrise and I don't ask myself every moment, who is driving everything) on the other hand, it is possible and I will be surprised to see a paper clip, which will make me realize that someone
Visited here before (provided of course that I had reason to think I was the first to visit here).
If you allow me to intervene in your conversation with B
To your question: What evidence do you know that contradicts evolution? (and the commitment to repent).
A. If I tell you that yesterday at the Pole a bear that grew red wings started to fly shed its wings and returned to being a normal bear. No you will have to contradict what
I said but I will have to prove.
B. Before you repent, first of all understand that the refuge in the theory of evolution is not real. This is just a theory and no proof.
pleasantness,
Your writing style (quote: unfit for human consumption. A collection of nonsense) is not respectful, certainly does not contradict what is written and of course not convincing.
Maya,
Unequivocally, no new species were created. Changes within the species itself do exist, but not from species to species. A fish will not turn into a crocodile that will not turn into a lion.
A,
I do think the theory of evolution makes no sense.
And one more little question!
According to the theory of evolution, how long does it take to develop a complete system such as the respiratory system? If we take the first creature in the chain of development that developed in him
Respiratory system. How many millions of years did it take him to develop it (for example: the inhalation organs, diffusion, the oxygen transmission system and perfusion) how is he living in the meantime? and if
He didn't need this system, so according to natural selection it shouldn't have continued to evolve for millions of years unnecessarily.
How nice that Shabbat is finally out and you can comment. Nissim get ready, soon he will ask you if according to science a car can develop inside a closed room.
(Yes, this is him, each time he appears here under a different name)
Miracles, you actually brought such an example yourself - the talisman fish. What is the difference between it and finding a 10 million year old T-Rex fossil? Obviously both of them do not refute the theory of evolution. In such a case, the schedule is simply changed (the species survived longer than we thought), but there is no refutation of the theory. Therefore, the claim that a human fossil next to a dinosaur will disprove evolution is itself disproved. So either the theory is not scientific and cannot be tested (which also completely negates the claims of Dawkins and his ilk), or it is scientific and is already disproved.
Miracles, would a fossil of a T rex from 10 million years ago be considered a fossil that is out of place? That is, one that disproves evolution? And if so, how is it different from the "telakant" fish, which is also considered an extinct species and surprisingly, living items from it were suddenly discovered?
ב
The "position" of a fossil refers to the timeline. A misplaced fossil could be, for example, a 100 million year old chimpanzee fossil, or a T. rex from 10 million years ago.
We don't always know when a certain species lives, so there may be "surprises". A famous example is the coelacanth, an ancient fish that is considered a species that died out with the dinosaurs. Surprisingly, live specimens of this fish were discovered 80 years ago.
Miracles, take for example the field of paleontology. Many times we hear that one fossil out of place is enough to collapse the theory of evolution (Prof. Dawkins for example or Prof. Jerry Coyne). Before I try to find you such a fossil, can you define what a "fossil out of place" is? Then we will see if such a fossil exists or not, and then we will see if the statements of Dawkins and his ilk really hold water.
ב
What evidence do you know that contradicts evolution?
I promise, to all the readers of the website, to repent if you prove to me that there is one such evidence.
If there isn't one - you're out of luck...
The problem is not in speciation but in development at the family level. For example, like the difference between a dog and a cat, or a squirrel and a raccoon. There is no scientific evidence for this claim other than the belief that it takes millions of years. Surprisingly, in the case of the theory of evolution - we must abandon the observed evidence (a cat remains a cat) and rather adopt a faith approach (a cat will change into something that is not a cat given millions of years). And that's when the other evidence that doesn't match the theory is ignored.
I don't think David really thinks there is anything illogical about evolution and as such it is almost pointless to answer any of his claims. It would be interesting to discuss them without connection to him (we already did it once in connection with this claim, and it was very much expected) but not in the context of persuasion.
There is really only one thing that probably does not make sense to David in the theory, and that is its incompatibility with how he sees the biblical story of creation. If he knew more about rabbis who are considered great (Rabbi Kook for example) who did not see a contradiction between the Torah and evolution only then maybe he could seriously examine the arguments in favor of the correctness of evolution
pleasantness,
Yariv was of course cynical in his words. David didn't give half an argument that an opponent hadn't heard before.
Uncle,
What is sex? How is sex defined? Are wolf and dog the same species? Are two types of bacteria that are genetically more distant from each other than the bacterium is a eukaryotic organism considered the same species? Do you realize that sex is a fairly arbitrary human definition of what is far enough? Do you understand that experiments were done with bacteria that created new species in our time (because bacteria reproduce very quickly) and whether to call it a new species or not is only a human decision? Do you realize that you are deciding not to call it a new species because you have already decided what the answer is?
Uncle,
I don't know exactly who his opponent is, if he is genuine when he writes "It already sounds much more logical to me, thank you for enlightening my eyes!", or if he is tired of corresponding.
But I will write to you on behalf of all those who do not respond to what you wrote, or who did not even bother to read your responses -
I read what you write, and it is simply - what to call it - unfit for human consumption. A collection of nonsense.
I have met people of your type, for example that ultra-Orthodox who does not believe in physics, but using a cell phone is a good use.
I stopped believing in discussions on the Internet - because they are too tedious and drawn out.
In short - make yourself a rabbi - find someone who is knowledgeable about the subject to explain it to you, and don't look for someone with your own opinion - because that way you won't learn anything.
Uncle
Let me ask you a question. Try to answer it yourself.
You fly alone in a spaceship to a distant planet and discover that the place is nice, and decide to land. You walk along the seashore and think that you are the first person to walk on this beautiful planet. The green sand is pleasant, and the orange sea reflects the red sky beautifully.
You find two things on the beach. The first is a strange animal that somewhat resembles an ordinary jellyfish. You are happy that there is life in this beautiful place, even if it is a very simple form of life.
Then, you turn over a stone, and discover something metallic underneath that looks exactly like a paper clip that we all know.
The question is - which of the two things are you more surprised by?
Uncle,
I can't understand how people really believe that all this complexity of our world was created from explosions, it's really ignorance!!
There must be a creator for the world, did you understand that miracles?? (Nissim constantly brings us "proofs" that the so-called evolution is true, enough I don't listen to him anymore!)
rival,
I was really excited to read what you wrote
really
and greetings
Uncle,
You know what? When you explain it like that, it suddenly makes a lot more sense to me 🙂 Thanks for enlightening my eyes!
When you write with a pencil do you think that maybe the materials that make up the pencil somehow found each other? When you type now do you imagine that somehow they were joined bit by bit and byte by byte until the explorer you type in was created? of course not. You immediately realize that someone did it. The same, when you see such a complex and amazing world in its complexity and precision down to the smallest particles, you immediately understand that someone did it (and this is even before we talked about the very inventions of matter).
Best regards
Uncle,
"But to know that there is a God who created everything, even now we don't need faith for that. It makes perfect sense.'
Sorry but I can't see the logic here, nor can I see how God makes more sense than evolution.
rival,
Believing in God who created everything is not science fiction or even faith, it is perfectly logical to say that someone did all this.
I will try to write something here in short and briskly and I hope I will be clear enough and not confuse you.
To say that God is omnipotent, may be that at this stage it is a belief for you, but it is possible that in the future, after studying, you will be able to say that you no longer need to believe this either, because you were able to understand why it makes sense. In the future, maybe it will be faith for you to say that even after creation there is still no reality other than G-d and it is possible that in the future this will also become logical for you.
What I want to say is that in our knowledge of G-d there are many degrees, what the Jew understands then he understands and what he doesn't then we believe until maybe we understand that too and our faith will be in something higher.
But to know that there is a G-d who created everything, even now we don't need faith for that. It makes perfect sense. Perhaps relying on other theories, such as evolution, hinders us from seeing the logic in God's creation.
Best regards
Uncle,
To tell you the truth, if I look at things objectively, the theory of an almighty God seems to me much more science fiction compared to evolution.
rival,
Very can be
It really bothers me to see how a very beautiful theory is propagated but without proof, and there is no proof, as if it were the truth. I really like science fiction but I separate reality from fiction. As long as there is no evidence it is not fair to market the theory as if science is sure that it is the truth.
Which often causes me to respond, so it is very possible that we have corresponded in the past.
No, not on behalf of the site.. There was one uncle here with whom we had long discussions on the subject of evolution, and I think it was you.
Uncle,
The researchers actually estimate that less than 2000 small changes are enough to create an eye like ours, and it will take several hundreds of thousands of years in total. The eye certainly had enough time to develop.
rival,
I really like science, so I occasionally come to this site. The truth is that I am not 100 percent sure, but it is very possible that I have already written several comments here. Although I assume that you meant whether I wrote here on behalf of the site and to that the answer is negative.
Best regards
Uncle,
Just curious, are you the same uncle who used to post here for a long time until about a year or two ago and then suddenly disappeared?
rival,
With your permission I will start from the end.
Do you really expect to see a fish turn into a lizard in your lifetime?
Well, in order to prove any theory, proof is required. And if the proof is a period that lasts for many years, this is not a sufficient reason to say that if this is the case then we will give up the proof.
And first of all your words.
But this is exactly what the fossil record shows us, a slow transition from one species to another, why doesn't this find satisfy you?
This finding is certainly not satisfactory. You must understand that the transition of even one cell to a complete organ such as an eye would require, according to the supporters of the theory of evolution, millions or perhaps billions of small changes and certainly a transition from one species to another. I really hope you will agree with me that if the transition from species A to species B requires billions of steps and someone comes along and places on this axis 5 10 and even a hundred or more creatures that he thinks can indicate evolution it is nothing more than a joke and in any case nothing more than a theory.
Just for illustration and don't get me wrong if the example doesn't really fit (it's just for illustration), if we say you're walking along the road and find a bolt continue along the road and after 1000 kilometers you find a bicycle again after 1000 kilometers you find a car and again after 1000 kilometers you find a plane and then the mother spaceship It makes sense to you to claim that there was an evolution of billions of stages from a screw stage to a spacecraft stage based on the number of stations you found along the way. Of course this could be someone's theory but for some reason I am sure that 99 percent will not accept his opinion
Best regards
And I wish you that following the holiday of Shavuot, the holiday of the giving of the Torah, a holiday in which we were chosen by God, you too will be able to get closer to him and with joy
Uncle,
"Proof of evolution = when we see documentation of a species becoming another species"
But this is exactly what the fossil record shows us, a slow transition from one species to another, why doesn't this find satisfy you? Do you really expect to see a fish turn into a lizard in your lifetime? Or a land mammal turns into a dolphin? You probably know that this is a process that takes millions of years, so what kind of documentation will satisfy you?
rival,
A. Proof of evolution = when we see documentation of some species becoming another species. (Even a one-time change of an entire organ, such as an extra finger, an extra eye, in an unusual location, etc., etc., is not considered evolution. There have always been all kinds of phenomena of strange creatures)
B. Indeed common sense and logic require that someone created us. But we need to understand that the one who created us also created this logic and equation that everything needs someone who preceded it. At the same time, we need to understand that the one who created this equation is not himself subject to it. He himself created time and is not subject to it. He himself created the concept of beginning and end and is not subject to them. He himself established the rule (which really makes sense and applies to us) that everything needs someone who preceded it, but he himself is not subject to these rules (like darkness - which he also created this concept - will hide and darken only us and not him). He was always (also the word always is problematic because it implies time) and will always be above the concepts of end and beginning.
The fact that we fail to understand how the Creator is above the concepts of time and that he has always been and how it is that he does not need someone before him and how it is that there is no concept of "before him" at all. It's okay because we were indeed created under these limitations.
But he did not
Uncle,
Another question, what according to you would constitute reliable proof of evolution? Can you give an example of a finding that would convince you?
Uncle,
If evolution is not true then how do you think we were created?
And if you think someone created us, how was he created?
I would love to wait 🙂
It just reminds me that a large part of the power that is considered the most scientifically and technologically developed in the world, consists of dark religious southern countries that are still populated by many primitive fundamentalist people, but full of money, and every few years also elect one of their cowboys who got rich as president.
It's a shame that they lie again and again
There is no proof of evolution period.
Changes within a species are not evolution. If I move to Africa and in the future my offspring are brown, that is not evolution. (And add more examples yourself). There is no proof that any species has become another species and it is time for them to stop lying. But the most important thing is that the claim that there was evolution leads to debates that make the theory of evolution sound so-called logical when the truth is that if anyone were to think in their head free from the noise and so-called proofs, in my opinion, they would not only not believe in the correctness of the theory of evolution, but would even sneer at this theory.
Even those who still can't do it, in the future they won't have much choice when the picture becomes clearer and the belief in evolution will become a joke, like the belief that the world stands on elephants and tortoises. Only then the shame will be greater when they are asked: But you spoke in the name of science! How did you not stop for a moment to think whether it makes sense, how could you not grasp the level of ridiculousness of this theory.
The funny thing is that it's clear to me that in the end science will be the one to disprove this theory (it's a little difficult for science to do that when the only alternative it currently has is G-d - maybe it will be easier for science to admit a mistake when someone comes up with another theory that also doesn't involve G-d)
Raphael,
Are you talking about the excuse that God made the earth "ancient" as he created the first man as a 20 year old?
Lahud Amir.
True, it is funny to say to deny that the world is billions of years old, but on the other hand it is equally funny that a scholar like you makes a close connection between how old the world is and when it was created. And if you don't understand why then it's an even bigger problem.
No, I don't have a problem. I made a rule for myself in scientific work not to assume the existence of a creator. keep my opinion to myself
To respect any atheist who really strives for the truth of his view. Our common denominator is that we will both strive for the truth and we will both fight against ignorance. As it is said in the Talmud: Discord for heaven's sake. Secularism in the spirit of the Enlightenment is acceptable to me. Secularism without lesser values. There was a precedent among many in Germany, for secularism without values, what does it make people do. Religion also causes some people to behave contrary to the kippah they wear, or to be religious members of any religion and do ugly things.
And in my humble opinion, all creationists have a problem with faith.
Since all the findings on which evolution is based exist; So if you believe, that means there is a God and he arranged the mess like that for a reason.
Those who deny the facts themselves (hereafter the creationists) are actually denying a divine act, and this is heresy!
Creationists should not be underestimated. They may accidentally win. Most of humanity somehow likes to go backwards, even after every reasonable proof that there was evolution. They always have an excuse. For example, if we told the creature that ingesting antibiotics and the fact that they stop working is proof of evolution, it would agree and say that evolution exists in bacteria but not in humans. The point is that creationists will not hesitate to use force if they reach a position of influence to erase the teaching of evolution.
For example, today there is a trend towards gender separation between men and women in universities by government order.
Another matter. Although many standard bearers of evolution are atheists for example Richard Dawkins, in my opinion there is no connection between evolution and belief in the existence of a creator. I believe in the correctness of both, and also in the correctness of the Big Bang being true to current knowledge.
The difference between evolutionists and creationists is the disagreement to accept the other's opinion.
I remembered the argument that God created the bones of the dinosaurs and the intelligence of the researchers, so that we would believe there were dinosaurs. So maybe we should believe in the scientific history of the universe as God's commandment?
Lassaf: Ignorance is a danger, since, contrary to Darwin's theory, the ignorant make more children and the majority of them survive childhood thanks to the progress of medicine. This means that there is a bias here in the direction of the spread of the ignorant as a percentage of the population.
Again and again the writers make mistakes and confuse concepts,
"And basically every two species "……"dealt with the differentiation of mouse strains"
In zoology there is a species and there is a subspecies, "species" yuck!
To the point of the subject:
In light of the rampant ignorance at all levels and regions
It is difficult to decide whether to accept the ignorant opinions as a joke
Or as a danger to the development of science...