Roi Cezana tries to reconstruct the sequence of events that led to the statements of the senior official in the Ministry of Education against two issues in the consensus - global warming and evolution
It all started one evening, when one of the senior officials in the Ministry of Education was sitting with his eldest son, and heard from him about the words of abomination and impurity that were conveyed in the physics class of that day at school. The boy's eyes were wide open as he recounted the difficult event.
"The teacher told us that the earth is round!" Hinoka sobbed uncontrollably. His father patted him sympathetically and straightened his cap, but his eyes oozed fire. Already in the morning
The next day the trial of the unruly teacher began.
"Do you admit that you taught that the earth is round?" the senior asked threateningly.
"Yes," admitted the teacher shamefacedly, "isn't he?"
"That's not the point!" The bad guys raised their voice, and it softened a little. "Look," said Nihuta, "doesn't everyone in the scientific community agree that the earth is round, isn't it?" and pointed to the portrait of Archimedes on the wall. "But he died thousands of years ago..." the teacher tried to answer. "That's not the point either!" The senior was furious, and sent the teacher into early retirement without benefits.
Not a week passed, and the senior's son returned to the house with tears in his eyes. "The ecology teacher told us that the earth is warming!" He whined in his father's arms. At dawn, the teacher found herself in the dock.
"Do you admit that you taught that the earth is warming?" the senior asked sternly.
"Yes," admitted the teacher, "but that's what we know according to all the measurements."
"That's not the point!" The bad guys raised his voice, and immediately calmed down. "Try to understand: this is a fundamentally absurd idea from a religious and moral point of view. After all, the mother of the earth
will continue to heat up, it will be destroyed in the end, and G-d has assured us that it is not like that."
"But you can't bring God into science classes..." the teacher tried to contradict the pure logic.
"That's not the point either!" The senior was furious, and sent the teacher into early retirement without benefits.
A week has passed, and two weeks too, and the senior has already dared to hope that the teachers of the country have stopped arguing, and that the school children accept all the existing scientific opinions: that the earth is round, triangular, square and also a pretzel. And not only that, but he also wondered whether to add to the textbooks that another ice age is upon us, according to the dream of one of the great rabbis of Maa-Shearim. And here, when he returned to the house, he found his firstborn son rubbing his red eyes.
"My father, my father," the child muttered in tears, "today they taught evolution in class!"
Then the senior left and was interviewed by Haaretz newspaper, and the rest is history.
More on the same topic on the science website
191 תגובות
Not true, your side was like that.
His side of the debate was always like this.
Michael, there's no need to keep answering him... he's just looking for the last word except that he's right: the discussion here has really become the level of 2-year-old natives...
Well, I'm sending my two-year-old daughter to finish the discussion here, hoping she won't get bored...
And more and more pearls of stupidity befitting the writer with the burnt logic...
And more and more pearls of wisdom befitting the writer of pure logic...
Hope you at least enjoy your jokes
It's nice that there are people who are still waiting for the past to come
It turns out that Purim brings up the evil manna (dhua) from the abode
Beware snake, the Inquisition is after you. You're next.
Out of respect for the site, I try not to comment.
In the meantime, I'm happy that I managed to annoy, to the extent that they impolitely ask me to vacate the arena instead of answering me. Or they answer me with wretched slogans from the madrasah of the shallow-minded, brainwashed and head-in-the-sand mobsters.
In your free time, and if the spirit of intellectual fairness rests on you, you can delve deeper into the issues raised here. I don't expect you to get out of the intellectual darkness you're stuck in so quickly, but at least you'll realize that it doesn't have that much of a realistic hold.
In the meantime, I fold my squirming tail and clear the site of my disturbing presence.
Until someone offers me some answer to some question.
Best wishes to the rest…
snake,
Get free advice, for your benefit only:
You are not yet at a good enough level to be a successful mahbat.
There is no choice, change your waist, study more, train more, and come back to us for your internship.
At the moment, apart from boring and tiring us, you can't do anything.
Of course, the way is always open before you to really dare and get out of the intellectual darkness you are in, but it is already much more difficult.
In the meantime, go practice at home, and free us from the swing.
You don't expect a response on that do you?
I hope for your sake that your company is as retarded as you are because otherwise they will understand what is really going on here.
Yo, what a poor thing, truly pitiful.
Now what's left for me is to go call the guys and show them that the dark atheists don't even know how to explain themselves to themselves.
Congratulations my friend,
I am very happy.
snake:
I already know that you do not understand what is being read and there is no need for you to prove it again and again
For 175 - for the fourth time you understood the reading!
He did not justify the holocaust!! He only said that God had warned her in advance. that's it. So maybe this warning proves something about Kim Ha-El?
How does this square with divine morality? Another question for another lecture. In any case, I would have been an apostate if there had not been a holocaust, after the people of Israel kicked their God, the Enlightenment and Zionism. What is interesting is that this atrocity happened precisely in the modern era, by the most educated and civilized nation in the world, the cradle of the Enlightenment movement, while 66% of the German professors were Jewish.
And that they don't try to attribute it to natural causes.
To guess, they explain to you that the created order is complex and not just ugly creatures (what is your definition of beautiful) and for the billionth time - the second law of thermodynamics speaks of a closed system, the earth is not a closed system, it receives the energy from the sun, the plants turn it into food that is eaten by Life at the top of the food chain.
By the way, I once saw a clip where Doron Auerbach justified the Holocaust by saying that "God forewarned".
What a twisted morality.
It must be very comforting to the babies whose heads were spinning.
Justice, justice shall you pursue:
You pursue justice as you pursue your enemies.
Some of the answers to Orbach's nonsense can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI&feature=related
Another part is here:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html
And here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ucsb-researchers-discover-the-dawn-of-animal-vision-2310072/
Another part is in this discussion:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/longest-talkback-0111079/
I stopped watching the propaganda film after the obvious nonsense, but Doron Orbach is invited to continue to ignore the reality and the fact that bacteria are constantly evolving and other animals and plants are also evolving
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
And also from the fact thatThe idea of evolution Also works in non-living systems - if for a chess game:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
If for navigating robots:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
And for solving scientific questions:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
And evolution can also be used toCreating a still life
And when he comes to attack evolution with the claim that life cannot be created from inanimate in any way, he is also welcome to continue to ignore the fact that sages thought that lice were created from human sweat and mice from mold.
Guess the liar:
You will not drag me to rewrite everything because it is clear to me that every minute devoted to you - apart from the efforts to drive you away from here - is a waste of my time.
Professor Doron Orbach speaks and explains
http://www.ayalla.net/modules.php?name=live-media&file=cadena&cadena=92
Michael-
Did you say something smart? Why are you so afraid to repeat it, I now scrolled up, and besides finding the root S.K.R. In every possible and impossible bias, I found only one claim, in 129, which is partly based on ignorance and partly on lack of reading comprehension, and even so I answered it:
A. This does not explain a phenomenon like order, it is possible that creatures were created, but not so orderly, certainly not beautiful, and the universe should have been chaos according to the second law of thermodynamics.
B. There is no observable phenomenon that does not have an easy explanation without evolution.
If I did not understand you correctly, you are welcome to elaborate, I will be happy.
And we already understood that you have turned off your brain and that you will never be convinced.
We're just trying to get you to stop littering.
Ancient Serpent:
Besides the fact that you don't know how to read numbers, you make sure to lie in almost every sentence.
I answered you, idiot! It's you who didn't answer me!
I didn't explain what absolute order is? Ecological balance? Food chain? And the human body, that as medicine progresses it realizes that it understands less and less, isn't it arranged? Read some articles on the subject. It is much easier to build a nuclear reactor than a cell, and the cell is many times more efficient (even in a negligible part of information storage) than the computer you are writing on now. It's one big mess, isn't it? And the human body, that as medicine progresses it realizes that it understands less and less, isn't it arranged? Even small details, such as the structure of the skull and the face, which are well and beautifully designed to serve the purposes indicate order. The order of hair growth, the position of the ears and eyes, the structure and position of the nose. Open the hood of a Fiat Uno once and be impressed by the order, then try to compare it to cellular respiration, or the digestive system..
The only solution that scientists have to explain the phenomenon of order is a very simple "multiverse", there were many, many universes, so statistically one turned out to be ordered... If this was the response I would have received, I would have understood that I was dealing with serious people and not with brainwashed brainwashed brainwashers who have not learned to think Alone in depth.
So keep saying over and over: "You don't explain anything" "The amount of unfounded claims is huge" etc. etc.
I don't know why, but it really doesn't convince me in favor of evolution...
snake,
The amount of your unfounded claims is enormous, and this is not what you are asked to explain, but what is the absolute order that governs all the systems of the universe.
And regarding cat vs. snake, like Dill, I too have seen cats confronting snakes, and your description just like your "scientific" claims is completely unfounded. A cat confronts a snake by nimble movement, jumping, moving from side to side, pulling the snake's back, and so on. The cat knows that his whole body is sensitive to the snake.
Your reading of biology and evolution is the same as observations that do not exist in animals.
Wow! What a beautiful video, Dan! An hour of coolness! It is indeed difficult there to see what I described, but I actually witnessed such an event.
The only weak point is in the nose because there is no fur there.
And the fact that the cat knows very well where the snake's weak point is (in the head) and that from that point he also needs to be careful (when he preys on a pigeon he doesn't have such precautions) is it clear? And that a horse's sense of smell will run him away from a lion, and that a lion's sense of smell will lead him to an antelope, even if this is their first encounter in their lives, is that understandable?
to 164, 165-
Cordyceps, invertebrate molluscs, without a backbone.
We both know that if you had something to answer you would have answered a long time ago and not descend to the lows and shallows of personal slander and ranting. It does not add respect to you in any way. Then a dark and infantile cult, people who have never thought rationally and maturely, brainwashed blind people will intervene.
And sorry for stooping to your level, I tried my best to maintain the dignity of the site, but it seems that this is the only language you understand.
Sorry, father.
"Different from a spiritual, material creature, which is not subject to the laws of physics, which has no dating on the starting point, which indeed does not need a creator"
I surrendered unconditionally.
The truth is that Man Dhua's single response already gave me enough reasons why I would not want them to teach any alt that involves the existence of any gods.
"The day I block, I will consider it an unconditional surrender, considering the fact that I have not yet received an answer to any argument..."
An unsurprising statement from someone who sees everything as its opposite
I live on a large area and I have cats and snakes in my yard and I have often seen a cat attack a snake and still the thing with the foot on the nose is new to me and also that the nose is the only weak point of the cat is also new to me.
Well, always learning new things
cat vs snake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncIX9vx3hfQ&feature=related
Good and familiar question.
First, she doesn't refute everything I said. The result is an obligatory result, even if it is based on a lack of understanding of the definition.
Second, a material being with a date on its starting point needs a Creator, since it is clear to us that it has not been since time immemorial. Unlike a spiritual, material creature, which is not subject to the laws of physics, which has no dating on the starting point, which indeed does not need a creator. He created both matter and time (in the Big Bang, according to science, where both were created.)
snake,
Well, I was completely convinced - to create something elaborate you need an even more elaborate creator, absolutely clear.
If so, who created the perfect creator who most talentedly created life on earth?
He is surely even more sophisticated, isn't he?
The day I block, I will consider it an unconditional surrender, considering the fact that I have not yet received an answer to any argument...
and back to 135-
Let's assume for a moment that there are positive random mutations, which build complex organs that help the survival of the species, then it is obvious that the process of natural selection will leave the most suitable and the rest will become extinct. OK. I also understand why the three-eyed creature did not survive, because an extra eye is a serious evolutionary burden and harms the species' chances of survival. Here there is a bit of a problem, because we have to assume that 25D vision is a quality equivalent to the evolutionary burden of maintaining an eye (something like XNUMX% of brain function)
All this is fine and dandy in relation to organs whose function is survival, or more precisely, assistance in the survival of the species. In this you can easily include eyes, teeth, limbs, sound and more. But, and this is a big pity, there are many organs whose role is indeed assistance, but not in survival. I first gave the example of the eyebrows, which are designed symmetrically exactly where they are needed. They are important there, to prevent the sweat of the forehead from browsing. But if the eyebrows were triangular in shape, and slid behind the ear, would natural selection have eliminated such a breed? After all, hair is not an evolutionary burden, there are varieties of people with different burdens of hair.
And what about random ingrown toenails in the shin area? Did natural selection get rid of that too?
We also noticed that when a person smells a carcass, he is disgusted, it is nature designed to protect the person from the infections present in the carcass. But when a dog smells a carcass, even if he has never experienced eating a carcass, he actually gets irritated. Is this also an evolutionary process?
It is interesting to note that every cat, even if he and his mother have never seen a snake, as soon as he sees a snake he will put his front paw on his nose, because that is where the only weak point is where the snake can bite him. How did this information penetrate the cat's consciousness?
And what about the caterpillar that has a snake's mouth painted on its back with incredible precision to threaten attackers? Did evolution draw that too? She didn't make any mistakes? And precisely for a caterpillar that has no other defensive ability?
Moving on, the process of photosynthesis-
If we were to try to do the same process in the laboratory, apart from the fact that we would need a lot of raw materials to reach tiny grams of material, we would also leave behind piles of sooty tools and test tubes, and above all: a lot of waste. Which perhaps proves the second law of thermodynamics. So how does the leaf do this with 1 to 1 efficiency without leaving any waste behind.
What do the priests of evolution answer? True, there is a second law of thermodynamics, but it is within a closed system... In other words, man and all living things are indeed very ordered, but it comes at the expense of 'mess' elsewhere!... As if our earth is a mess, it is enough to read National with an unarmed eye, Not to mention scientific articles, to see the amazing ecological order and balance that prevails in creation. Usually the extinction of one species out of tens of thousands can cause ecological damage to an entire area, if not the entire globe.
let's move on-
Every person who sends a satellite into space knows that it is necessary to place it with absolute precision at a very, very certain point, and to give it a very, very certain push, in order to place it in the exact place where it is the satellite of the object. In our universe there are countless precise, beautifully designed and engineered satellites.
Well - when I see in front of a computer, I can know two things: A. that there is a computer in front of it, B. that there is an intelligent factor that designed and created it. When I see a complex and orderly system, I know that someone arranged it that way.
And the most important argument of all: the basic complexity of life, below which there can be no life, and it has to be created somehow in order for life to begin, because otherwise there is no continuation and no mutations. What will the priests of evolution answer? Yes, there was once life from a single cell... It is interesting that this form of life did not leave a single fossil, and that it is impossible to create it even in the age of the nuclear reactor, and that little me has to believe all kinds of unprovable things in order to recognize the hypothesis of random evolution.
Sorry for cutting it short.
Year:
The internal contradiction arises due to the word "turned" which means that before he was not a troll.
In my experience, trolls who are not answered simply gain more and more confidence and even gain a fan base.
I wasn't just talking about two trolls. There are (probably two) more idiots here but they just stand aside and clap their hands.
I have already seen many trolls that when they were diligently attacked and when their every attack against science was used not only to defend science but also to present their world view as ridiculous (the best defense is an attack) they realized that they were causing negative publicity for themselves and stopped.
There are trolls that counterattack is not "off" either. They are so obsessed that they don't see that they are demeaning themselves. They should just be censored.
Shut up, shut up, run, dodge, dark atheists like you.
A bunch of idiots with the intelligence level of a common avocado.
Michael,
Regarding the internal contradiction, if the two pronouns mean the same thing, they are not a contradiction. But the main thing is, if we don't respond to the snake and the like, they will shut up on their own in a short time. As you saw, the snake enjoys the bickering, and sees no need to learn and answer real answers on his side.
Year:
In my experience this is simply not true.
It's also based on an internal contradiction: what's the difference between a snoozing commenter and a troll?
Michael
A snooty commenter became a troll just because people responded to his nonsense.
Avi,
I assume that this response was written in response to Noam's response 147 and the email I sent you.
As I mentioned, in my opinion trolls should simply be blocked from accessing the site.
Right now there are two idiots here who hijack every discussion and destroy it.
I noticed. I and the other writers and content partners on the site can offer words of wisdom. If there are people who choose to ignore them and bring their previous opinions it is no longer my problem, unfortunately it is a problem for all of us as a society.
my father.
snake,
No doubt you enjoy the collisions. Perhaps you will answer my request for a moment, and explain to us, your students, for a little while, in a reasoned way if you also summarized two things you wrote in 135:
"The absolute order that prevails in all systems of the universe", what is it? What is?
"It is absolutely possible to prove God",
The discussion goes something like this:
-you do not know!
- No, you don't know!
-You do not understand!
- No, you don't understand!
-You don't say anything!
- No, you don't say anything!
Since I have no interest in continuing a discussion in this way, I am leaving the arena until the discussion receives a significant logical refresh.
Thanks to my father.
I asked you to vote on something, because so far I have not received any response from anyone, which indicates arrogance/ignorance/lack of answer.
I would say the first sentence you said to me to most of the participants here.
snake,
You probably don't even bother to read what they tell you - it's a bad habit, you'll never get ahead like that, and you won't have a good battle either.
You are wrong in understanding all the central elements of the theory of evolution, and if this is the case after "reading a lot", your situation is not warning.
Please re-read carefully what was written to you and try to understand - I'm sure you can.
Avi Blizovsky,
Has it occurred to you that your website is a training ground for beginners (and not particularly smart ones, it must be said) before going out on the street?
to the stag-
Neither I nor the chief scientist suggested not studying evolution, but also studying the alternatives and the problems, as well as the fact that there are many scientists who oppose it.
It is important that you learn that evolution is not contradictory to religion, but only to accidental evolution. And she has a problem not only with religion but also with the statistics as mentioned above. And that there is no observed phenomenon that does not have a simple explanation without evolution.
And most importantly: don't challenge me on the level of objectivity in this discussion since it is much easier for me to remove the kippah than for you to wear it...
For your response on 144-
Have you heard of the cosmological argument?
to Dan-
The day there will be suitable alternatives for every student in the country, and at the same cost, I will close. We are talking about the compulsory education law and the place where you put every child in the State of Israel.
About the rest, either you will elaborate or I will continue to understand that you are talking in passwords.
It is important to note that the burden of proof both in the evolution hypothesis and in biblical criticism is on those who claim yes.
The fact that in science "proof" is something quite compromising does not make the theory believable, also, the fact that great scientists question this theory proves that there is no proof and therefore there is no place to see this theory as unequivocal or as the position of science. The gravity is indisputable, it is unequivocal. Evolution is currently in a very problematic place in this respect.
If you say "absolutely ridiculous" about factual responses, you understand on your own that it will not advance you anywhere.
You remind me of the countless wretched and shallow hypocrites that I have debated who prefer to ignore clear facts whenever their theory is put to the test of reality.
Lanaam-
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I read and know a lot about evolution, if I'm wrong, correct me. I have no interest in being religious, it is a heavy burden. Only a correct and mature observation of life can lead a person to believe and observe the religious commandments.
By the way - maybe I'm innocent, what do you say about Prof. Orbach?
snake,
Some people whistle in the dark to allay their fears, and some people repeat the mantra "bullshit has failed" to allay their fears of the threat to their faith.
Both methods are equally effective.
To disprove evolution, you first need to understand - and you are very far from that.
I repeat and suggest you, use your time to get out of the warm and dark pit you are in, it is hard, it is uncomfortable, but I promise you that at the end of the process you will only benefit from it.
to guess,
"Why are you diverting the discussion to the ultra-orthodox schools? Someone is forcing you to study there"
This argument goes back to you and to everyone who rejects evolution and believes in a superman who moves the world, is someone forcing him to study in the secular schools? Let him go study where his approach is taught.
Like any good religionist builds all your arguments on the negation of the other side without bringing it up yet
One argument that justifies your side.
"
When you see a planned creature or product, at the most basic planning level, it is proven that it has a planner. Unequivocal. Unless it has a compelling alternative, in our case: evolution. If she fails, the first option remains."
Completely delusional, the presuppositions are also false, you will learn the laws of logic, there are serious logical errors in your conclusions.
For some reason, all your demagoguery reminds me of Mkhbat I debated with in the past, cheap and unconvincing tactics
I did not notice the posting of comment 141 above me.
According to what then do you claim that one theory is a failure while another "something" is based? It follows that it is not certain that you have ever internalized what science is. And in addition, it is also not certain that you understand the meaning of the word "proven" according to the sentence you wrote: "...when you see a planned creature or product, at the most basic level of planning, it is proven that it has a planner." After all, where is the proof? Hence you don't know what proof is. indeed?
snake,
Be careful not to read too fast. The words of my previous response are not my words but a quote that I brought because of my opinion on him.
And now I will ask you a question: what do you propose? Shouldn't we learn the theory of evolution? You understand that this theory is very important in most of the world's cultures, including us of course. After all, it collides head-on with religion. in any religion. Not hitting, but competing. So how can you, who favors religion and opposes evolution, determine which of the two is "correct"? How will you determine what to teach and in what way?
I'll tell you something else - I'm not sure you know and understand what a scientific theory is, or what science is in general. And if that is indeed the case, then it is sad that you express your opinions so strongly here. A little humility won't hurt you.
And for the sake of full disclosure - I am not aware of the part of the previous discussion where Michael Rothschild gave up on you (what is also incomprehensible why you have no answers for him).
Lanaam-
Instead of giving definitions, give arguments, it will sound a little more reliable...
Evolution is science's solution to the problem of the origin of life, and it tries to explain it by natural means only. Since she failed in this, I think the solution is either not to teach it, or to teach that there are people who think this way, and there are confirmations for this (let's say) but there are lots and lots of holes in it.
As long as the biblical criticism of the greatest conspiracy in history is taught as fact, without any proof, why don't we learn about things that are a little more established?
When you see a planned creature or product, at the most basic planning level, it is proven that it has a planner. Unequivocal. Unless it has a compelling alternative, in our case: evolution. If she fails, the first option remains.
to Dan-
Why are you diverting the discussion to the ultra-orthodox schools? Does anyone force you to study there?
Proofs I scattered above, the basic argument is about the basic complexity of the protein. The day the scientist who designs the protein that can be created by himself during the time/molecules at his disposal will be restored, he will receive the mother-mother of the Nobel Prizes.
to guess,
What does academic freedom have to do with it?
Do we teach denial of the holocaust as an alternative to studying the holocaust for example
And I have an idea: the day they start teaching evolution in ultra-Orthodox schools while clarifying that it is an alternative equal to belief in God, then I will accept all your arguments
And I will excel in any freedom you want.
Second, stop talking about proofs already, if you or your hooded friends had the slightest proof of the invalidity of evolution or the existence of God/a higher power/Batman
A long time ago you would have run to receive the mother of the Nobel Prizes.
to the respondent,
What you're doing is putting arguments that I've never said before, and then trying to contradict them. It seems easier for you than arguing with real arguments.
There is no scientific theory that is a fact, and no sane person would claim that.
Evolution is an excellent scientific theory that has successfully stood up to thousands of confirmations - nothing more and nothing less.
Belief in God, on the other hand, did not stand up to even one small confirmation.
The theory of evolution does exactly what you fear so much - it shows the way to create complex and complicated life without prior planning and without the need for a planner. I suppose this frustrates you greatly, but the progress of human knowledge cannot be stopped for long, because of outdated beliefs.
And no, I don't hate God at all - how can you hate something that doesn't exist?
snake,
I mentioned before that combining ignorance with lack of understanding is a difficult matter.
The beauty of you is that you are not afraid to show both of them in public.
A scientific theory is a completely defined thing, completely objective, and not related to anyone's opinion.
A scientific theory is a theory that meets the strict criteria of the scientific method. Since this subject has been well explained here many times, there is no point in repeating it, but for the sake of the fruitfulness of the discussion, I suggest that you sit down and study the subject, that way you will also broaden your horizons, and the level of the discussion will also rise.
In short, there are correct scientific theories and there are incorrect scientific theories (more precisely: there are scientific theories that have been disproved, and there are scientific theories that have not yet been disproved). Science is not at all afraid of refuting a theory - on the contrary, every refutation of a theory advances knowledge towards a better theory.
The stories of Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland are great stories, and nothing is taken away from them because they are not scientific theories. So are the biblical stories, and the story of the intelligent creator.
But teaching stories as a scientific theory - it's not - it's not academic freedom, it's stupidity.
You can't prove anything from what you wrote, it's a waste of your time. Make better use of it to move forward into the 21st century
Not "adopting a position" but asking for academic freedom.
According to you, the adoption of the position of the Ministry of Education in favor of evolution is no less problematic. See how much confusion there is in the field, and how wrong they are to think that this hypothesis is proven/possible/the position of all scientists from wall to wall. And as mentioned above, the definition "position of a minority in the community" is a very problematic definition, not to mention trendsetting.
It seems to me that the following paragraph summarizes the matter in the most beautiful way (from the article that was published in Israel - penultimate paragraph):
According to Dr. Shahar Dolev, from the "Israeli Energy Forum", "scientists are constantly finding more evidence for the 'warming theory'. It is good that there are scientists who raise questions and claims, because it is healthy for the scientific discussion. But if people with authority - such as a chief scientist in a government office - adopt a minority position in the scientific community and spread it widely, then this causes enormous damage, because it confuses the public and the decision makers."
Noam-
You are putting yourself in a very uncomfortable spot in this discussion,
What is defined as a scientific theory? whatever is comfortable for you? It actually seems to me that in 2050 our discussion will be irrelevant because this theory will find its place in the dustbin of scientific history.
I understood very clearly what the role of natural selection is, but it all starts one step after blind evolution created such beautiful cards for us...
If you have patience, I will continue to prove the exemplary order that exists in creation, starting with the protein, the cell, the animal, and the global balance. There is no formula that can blindly explain this as we are known today.
It is certainly possible to prove God both from the absolute order that governs all systems of the universe, not something that happens by evolution/natural selection, and from the origin of life and matter.
What is unfortunate about the theory of evolution is that it has become a so-called "fact", something that cannot be pondered over, not questioned.
This phenomenon is a dangerous phenomenon. Every theory, and even every fact, must be doubted.
Evolution is still only a theory and not a "fact".
It is a mistake to think that belief in God or belief in an intelligent creator is the "darkness of the Middle Ages." This is a mistake because order and planning are not possible without a planner, creation is not possible without a creator, life is not possible without life. To this very day, no scientist has been able to prove that life arises by chance or not by chance. Hence the very origin of life remains a mystery.
It is impossible to prove God, but he still has a place in the mysterious equation of the origin of life, the creation of animals.
evolution? One more theory...theory of atheists, the theory of God-hating lost people.
ancient snake,
The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of God or any other intelligent creator, it simply makes him redundant.
You repeat mistakes time and time again, which also indicates ignorance and a lack of understanding, and this is a combination that is not easy to overcome.
Natural selection has no purpose and no intention. Natural selection operates according to the constraints of the environment and not according to God's will.
The evolution of species is not done randomly, and all arguments about low probability stem from a lack of understanding of this fact.
As an example, which at first glance does not seem related, we will examine what happens in a bridge game.
You will surely agree with me that the cards are distributed among the participants completely randomly.
Are the game results random as well? Think about it.
Regarding what to teach - since when should everything be taught in school?
Intelligent design does not belong to science at all, and we are not a scientific theory, therefore it should not be studied as a minority opinion of science.
If we go back to teaching all the nonsense they once believed, we will not be able to move forward and advance the future generation, and we will sink into dark ignorance, as some of the commenters on the site demonstrate to us well.
I read carefully. Well this way: First, it is written that most scientists believe that natural processes such as natural selection caused the evolution of species. This does not contradict the existence of God. I also believe in natural selection when there is a higher power that guides natural selection to its planned goal and destination.
But let's assume not, and everyone is an atheist. So we have at least one conflicting survey, and Avi Blizovsky wrote (response 78) that there are more opponents but "so what, it's like there will be opponents that the earth is round."
And I say, as long as there are two opinions in science, and there is no unequivocal consensus around a certain position, (and 22% is definitely an opinion that cannot be eliminated) why not teach both opinions in school? Expose future scientists to a wide range of positions? Tell our children In such a case "science determines" is a declared lie!
By the way, in the same survey it appears that 80% support the global warming theory. After the Climate-Gate affair, one can fully understand why, and one can fully understand the value of such a majority in terms of ascertaining the pure scientific truth.
Fixing the link - if the link doesn't work, add a sign / in the top line
After the 528
Below is a survey from 2009
http://people-press.org/report/528
snake:
You write everything out of ignorance. Not just the last sentence.
Do you really not understand that if you exterminate the least suitable the result is not random because the next generation will be variations on the most successful creatures in the previous generation and not just random creatures?
Are you not willing to address the fact that the exact same method - including random mutations is used to solve technological and scientific problems in a method called "evolutionary calculation" (meaning that there is a method you call "random" that is used to solve specific problems - sometimes those that do not know how to solve otherwise)?
Are you ready to clarify your lie about Einstein?
Not from me, from many others yes.
You need to understand the background to the appearance of evolution, this is after over 1800 years in which the church ruled and people were not allowed to speak against the religion, not a single scientific word (and the famous example: nevertheless it moves) this thing is so burned in the memory that there are sane people today who think about society The ultra-Orthodox today do the same thing, they live in a kind of ultra-phobia without examining the matter in depth. In any case, Darwin was a believing Gentile, and this not only did not prevent him from writing the hypothesis, but actually helped. So it's probably not contradictory, right? Darwin explained how species evolved and nothing else. If I explain gravity does that mean there is no God? As far as I'm concerned, he exists and manipulates the laws at any given moment.
According to the theory of evolution, species evolved to their current state by complete randomness. point. Those who do not understand this have not learned what evolution is. Natural selection imitates the less suitable varieties for the environment. But the species itself evolved through random and blind mutations. You are right that the more difficult theory is abiogenesis, which "explains" the development of life from inanimate objects by chance.
I have read quite a few of Dawkins' reflections, the high priest of evolution, the man writes in a beautiful and impressive way, but leaves no real answers to the central questions. And believe me - I'm not writing the last sentence out of ignorance.
snake,
Is it too much to ask you to argue honestly without pushing false and misleading information?
Darwin developed the theory of evolution not "with the clear recognition that only an intelligent factor guiding the process was involved in all stages"
It just borders on lying!
Exactly the opposite - Drowin developed the theory of evolution as a complete contrast to intelligent design!
Another mistake that you keep repeating, and this time probably because of a lack of understanding, that according to the theory of evolution, life was created randomly.
Big big mistake - no one believes it.
What you didn't understand is that the opposite of randomness is not intelligent design but the theory of evolution itself.
Evolution conflicts with one of the foundations of religious belief - that it takes something great and sophisticated to create something inferior to it.
This was Darwin's great revolution - the process that enables the creation of sophisticated life forms without an intelligent creator.
If you are not afraid to open up to advanced ideas, you should read some books on the subject.
A particularly good book is Richard Dawkins' book "Is there a God?"
Lying snake:
It's a shame you didn't read what he wrote because in the interpretation it says the opposite of what you say.
It can be seen in many places, but the shortest expression on the matter - which appears above but I repeat it here because it turns out that you are not able to handle many sentences in one response - is this:
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
Not a bad mass of material you brought, wasn't it difficult for you?
So, Einstein believed in God as an intelligent agent who engineers and plans the universe. He prayed in "A-lohim Ishii", which means: private supervision. This is proven by the things you brought and countless other letters and statements.
By the way - of course this part is an integral part of the religion, and there are other proofs of this.
snake:
From Einstein.
You are welcome to read what he wrote after realizing that there are idiots like you:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
And more:
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]
And more:
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
And more:
If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years]
And more:
The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere. [Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, pp 69-70]
And more:
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
And more:
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
Da(r)vin! 🙂
Terribly funny, extremely formative. Why do you think Einstein used the word god to refer to nature? Precisely from wording like: "I don't think this is the direction of the old man" it is a bit difficult to reach this conclusion.
Lanaam-
Belief in the New Testament is really a bit problematic, unlike our Bible, I answered this above.
The fact that 76% believe in God means that it is impossible to believe in evolution as it is known to us, ie: random. Even when Darwin published his hypothesis he did so only with the clear recognition that only an intelligent agent guiding the process was involved in all the steps. Even the neo-Darwinists have not yet managed to sketch even one protein that can be created randomly (even if we blindly believe all the assumptions they expect us to believe was in the universe at the beginning of life) even if we use all the seconds we have had since the big bang until today.
That is why it is easy and possible to understand evolution when you are simultaneously aware of the intelligent factor, and the research is completely relevant.
Not only humans - even gods do not ask snakes what to do.
As I said - because of the linguistic confusion that all kinds of people managed to do (including Spinoza and Einstein) there are many who started with this nonsense of calling nature "God".
Snakes apparently have the ability to ignore everything they are told and go back and ask questions that have already been answered.
What is faith in God? What did he do? Sit and watch the process of random evolution?
Kind of boring, isn't it?
ancient snake,
The same study you mentioned also says:
"About 75 percent agreed the Bible "is an ancient book of fables recorded by men."
Free translation:
The study found that 75% of the respondents agree that the Bible is an ancient book that is a parable/legend written by humans
Do you also agree with the opinion of 75% of the respondents?
As Michael pointed out, the study did not at all test the opinion of the respondents regarding creationism or evolution (and this is in contrast to the study that Dan Shamir referred to) - is this a deliberate attempt to mislead or just a lack of attention?
Finally another snake lie.
Cites a document in which the word "creation" in its various inflections is not mentioned at all as evidence that scientists are creationists.
to discuss
Finally a substantive response! Thanks.
As for the first document, it is interesting that the document I brought talks about a survey from 2009, maybe even '10, 15 years after the survey in question, and the percentage of creationists increased from less than one percent to 76%, so how many creationists will there be in 2020? Keep strong, you will be the only neo-Darwinist!
The second document is extremely bleak, it is about studying the Bible in science classes! No normal person asked for this, all they asked was that they learn the "criticism of evolution" during the studies of evolution, just as today they learn "criticism of the Bible" more than the Bible.
At the same time, it is worthwhile, important and necessary for them to learn the opinions of important scientists who advocate the respectable creationism theory, and to be aware of the scientific controversy surrounding the topic of random evolution, what is more advanced and enlightened science than exposure to a wide range of opinions, legitimate scientific opinions and accepted by a most respected part of the world of science?
Our children are exposed to more opinions and the sad result is that some of them become snakes.
A bit about the statistics behind scientists against evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
And another interesting document
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Indeed, a serious gag! The Inquisition was not effective on that! Anyone who dares to think differently from the ruling junta will be condemned to death!!
Why are they shaking so much? Will our children be exposed to more opinions? If they are so scared, they probably know very well what's up!
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1152752.html
Merry goof, I watched this a long time ago with great boredom. It's hard to say the term deficient for something that doesn't really exist. And to be clear, the arguments against evolution there are also not perfect. But Rousseau there just dodged, if you have patience I will expand.
After Shabbat, of course, you have 26 hours of freedom to blaspheme
stupid:
I stopped wasting time on you, but if you want, you are welcome to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI&feature=related
and in its four sequels.
Further to the claims of the ancient serpent, it should be noted that there is a petition signed by over 600 scientists, some of them world-renowned, in which they doubt the theory of evolution.
Your conspiracy theory about the sophisticated and intelligent creation of the universe or the biggest conspiracy in history about the status of Mount Sinai is far more humorous and sad.
By the way - from the Calmite Gate affair I proved my point about a ruling clique very well.
I didn't make a single serious claim? Either you didn't read or you don't know how to read or you failed, go back and fail in reading comprehension.
Leave your home. Newton, Darwin and the XNUMXth century man Einstein were idiots, right? And again I ask, what motivated such a rational person, with such a prestigious and accepted status and position, to go to some dark and primitive sect, isn't this a person who stands at the forefront of modern science. And there are many more creationist post-docs, this means that in science itself there are at least two opinions. So it is absolutely wrong to say that science claims about accidental evolution.
The New Testament includes the stories of our Bible, but it ends with some virgin giving birth and other hallucinations, so why believe it in its form? Those are fairy tales. Anyway, there is no connection between the Bible and creationism, except for the fact that it presents one such way.
So bury your head in the sand hard, like a snake, I can advance you in this, even though you beat me to the punch in this area. And thank God that I chose this name, so you have at least one serious claim to make.
Congratulations
I said I don't whisper to snakes so I won't exaggerate.
You did not receive a response to one serious claim because you did not raise one serious claim.
The fact that Orbach lies when he stutters is a typical phenomenon among religious people - basically the same as your claim that you did not receive an answer to one serious claim.
The Christian faith includes the belief in our Bible and your words on the subject are another characteristic lie.
It is written that they believe that these are fictional stories (meaning - not only that it was written by a human agent, but that it does not contain real knowledge about reality).
Your reliance on a conspiracy theory with a ruling clique is really a joke.
By the way, I really didn't understand what the connection is between creationism and the belief that the Bible was written by a non-human entity. These are two parts that are not related at all.
2- The "Bible" to which the survey refers is the New Testament, a stupid and delusional book full of nonsense, that those who believe in it do so of their own free choice. Unlike the original Bible which has been proven historically and scientifically countless times.
3- The document you brought is signed only by institutions, not people. Again - the ruling clique. The survey actually referred to people.
in a serpentine bow
Those who divert the discussion...
Out of all the participants of this panel, I did not receive even one serious response to one serious claim I presented. Dan dragged me into a discussion about Hitler's faith (an argument I made, but not really the main one) and Blikowski preferred to ignore facts. (He hasn't said the hard word yet, I'm waiting anxiously) It's very typical for people in your situation to clear the arena and run away from an argument. will vouch for you.
Until the Middle Ages people were religious because those who were not religious were tortured or murdered by the church. And between us, it is not such a difficult problem to declare that you are a Christian.. There was a world war of the church, the only ones perhaps who lasted under missionary rule (and not even inquisitorial) were the Jews. They probably had good reason.
There is no connection between the fact that scientists sign the document and the fact that they stuttered to Prof. Auerbach when he pinned them to the wall with conclusive scientific evidence. By the way: Nature - God? And what about superintelligence?
And again you ignore the argument that if there are at least two sides among the scientists, it proves that there is no proof of evolution. That's why you focus on being a snake... It actually seems to me that I'm communicating with a computer that has undergone some kind of mutation and writes automatically, this is because there is no rational person who conducts a discussion in this way.
By the way: confirmation of my claim that the survey is about a completely different concept of God can be found in the article provided by the snake itself (well, snakes should not be expected to understand this):
About 75 percent agreed the Bible is an ancient book of fables recorded by men
Ancient Serpent:
The truth is that I find no point in talking to snakes. At least not until a few more hundreds of millions or billions of years have passed and they have evolved to allow a reasonable conversation with you.
Your responses are completely illogical and contain no correct claims at all (except, perhaps, the claims that are not related to the discussion).
This includes absolutely everything - from your claim that a person tends to be secular because of the ease of the matter while ignoring the fact that until the end of the Middle Ages everyone was religious, through the claim that one scientist cannot fall into the trap but millions of respected and talented scientists than him actually do, through the link of belief in God to religion, By ignoring the confusion that people started to create when they started calling nature by the name "God", by the fact that Professor Auerbach is lying about a lot of things and especially in his claim about the creation of most of the scientists involved in the life sciences and this even in view of the simple fact that they all signed this document:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
And more and more until it's not enough.
That's why I, the discussion with snakes, finished.
Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history, is it agreed that he was an atheist? Or is communism also based on religious values and conscience? In any case, Nazism drew its philosophy of life from Nietzsche, and Hitler himself said that the Jews gave man the defect of conscience and morality, so how does this reconcile with his pursuit of truth and keeping God's commandments??
Since, thank God, there is no Mein Kampf in front of me at the moment, I cannot comment on the above quote. If you have a link, I would appreciate it. In any case, on the face of it, it seems that his words were taken out of context.
You can be a Wikipedia editor…
From Mein Kampf
"Therefore today I believe that I am acting in coordination with the will of the Almighty Creator: by protecting myself from the Jew, I am actually fighting for God's work"
!!!!!!!!!
Did you also hear about his theses, and the connection to Hitler? read a little
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%98%D7%A9%D7%94
I heard and read, so?
Have you heard of Nietzsche?
Another little challenge to start checking your responses:
According to the first paragraph in response 93, could you bring a shred of evidence/testimony
That Hitler was an atheist.
This is a well-maintained urban legend.
Go deal with him what you want from me... In any case, as mentioned, as long as what is being condemned is about interests, I have the upper hand in any case, because from any point of view, even populist, it is easier to be an atheist today.
Which: "His religiosity prevailed over his science."?? This is a secular, a graduate of combat units (captain in Golani), a salt of the earth, a postdoctoral fellow at CWRU University in Cleveland, a world-renowned inventor. Didn't know religion from anywhere except science. Manager of research groups and laboratories.
It is enough for me that a man of such magnitude, with no previous connection to religion, disbelieves in evolution, to prove unequivocally, that there is no proof of evolution, it is all a prayerful faith of those who wish to believe in it, at most.
Africh = Africh even though I liked the doubling of the meaning
What cheap demography.
I don't refer to the first paragraph at all because it is full of so many mistakes that I am
I don't even know where to start.
"If you ask me about the truth, I think that Judaism is an absolute truth, it is a necessary truth for scientific reasons" - I am beginning to suspect that his religiosity prevailed over his science.
Black on white I promise you and the respected professor that if he encounters, if he scientifically proves the existence of a higher power" "something beyond" "superintelligence" (in your words)
I will personally disprove his claim.
what are you saying? Do you or he accept the challenge?
To Michael and Dan.
The trap of religion? A respected scientist falls into a trap? Alas, then perhaps most scientists have fallen into the trap of atheism? Much more logical, since while religion binds man with chains of conscience and morality (see Mein Kampf), atheism frees man from any moral-value obligation. (If the Jews, for example, are a false mutation, what would be more correct than to suffocate them with Cyclone B? And whoever said that creationism is also some kind of genetic defect...) That's why when I'm told "I fell into the trap of religion", I'm really not convinced, certainly not when it comes to Judaism, a small religion and persecuted, with enormous restrictions in almost every field. Really really unconvincing.
By the way, Prof. Auerbach reasons himself well. He also tells about many gaping mouths he encountered when presenting his thesis. So he doesn't just introduce her to people on the street...
To be clear, this man is not a zero minority in the scientific consensus, since most scientists today (76% of PhDs in physics) are believers. will refer here http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/aug/14/20050814-115521-9143r/ In Israel the number of atheists is higher and it is very clear why, while a believing Christian does not bind himself to almost anything, a believing Jew binds himself to a complex and demanding system of laws. Prof. Auerbach also refers to this and says that most scientists dealing with the chemistry and physics of life are creationists in various variations. ("Superior power" "something beyond" "superintelligence" and more) He also says: "Of the hundreds of people I have encountered (I wonder who he encounters on campuses, certainly with illiterates...) I have yet to meet a person who can refute this claim" More quotes: I came to Judaism because of many scientific reasons. If you ask me about the truth, I think that Judaism is an absolute truth, it is a necessary truth for scientific reasons." And more: "...so as a scientist I can say to humanity: dear humanity, an inanimate object cannot become alive by chance, period."
So why did he choose Judaism? Not only because of the negation of accidental evolution, but because he had evidence for Judaism itself.
to give
In response 77 you wrote:
"I claim that if there was no conclusive proof then all creationists would have to admit it and find a new way"
Your conclusion is a big mistake and you should realize that there is no connection between reason and religion,
The vast majority of creationists in the world absolutely believe that Jesus was born of a virgin woman!!!!.
Evolution is not an exact science like mathematics but a well-established and well-constructed theory
On hundreds of thousands of evidences that correspond to each other and come from exact sciences.
To clarify my argument I will give you a point for the thought that since you are a Jew you cannot ignore it, according to the criteria you set, can you provide conclusive proof that the holocaust of our people in Europe was indeed a reality? No, you can't.
You will be able to lay out millions of intersecting evidences and it will be clear to you that if I am a sane person without prejudices I will straight away see the required conclusion and even then you will not be able to convince any holocaust denier.
Ancient Serpent:
Professor Auerbach is not an expert in evolution and is not an expert in genetics or biology. He is an expert in certain areas of chemistry.
It is clear what Auerbach thinks, but it is also clear what the entire academic establishment thinks and he thinks the opposite.
It's sad when a scientist who fails to sell his wares to scientists tries to find people on the street who will believe him (and succeeds in doing so mainly because he tells them what they wanted to hear in the first place)
to the ancient serpent,
This is not a prestige contest and no one underestimates the prestige of Prof. Auerbach Mailit
Israel's scientists, but he is just a flesh and blood human being and he also fell into the trap of religion.
There is a place for his opinion, but one should bring the account that he is in a zero minority in the scientific consensus,
I can give you a list of 100 world renowned scientists whose opinion is the complete opposite of his, would it make a difference? Will it change your mind? I guess not.
Reporter:
"This man discovered precisely through science that it is in no way statistically possible to assume evolution as it is presented today in science, Hoy says by chance and without the intervention of a superintelligence"
The man didn't find out but inferred, and even if he did then what did he choose to believe, in something with no evidence at all he says.... It's only your conclusion that there are only 2 options.
skeptic……
Apologies if this seems offensive to you.
It seems to me that you are only skeptical when you are really sure.
Nathan honey, why are you attacking? She asked (and this is recorded) "Who do you think holds the criteria of an expert."
I answered. I also thought it was obvious but you asked, so I assumed it was probably not understood. Even if you ask me how much 2+2 is, I'll be predictable, I don't think that makes me any less skeptical... and it's also certainly not satisfactory...
I think the whole second part of your comment is exactly the opposite of you... but it really doesn't matter anymore, everyone will read and decide according to their own logic...
skeptic………..
It was just as predictable as saying that—
that circles are only those whose points are all equidistant from one point at their center.
If so, it is appropriate for you to change your name from Mr. Skeptic to Mr. Predictable or Mr. Confident.
In your opinion, anyone who is not in the group you defined does not have the ability to express a weighty opinion on the subject.
In my humble opinion, there will be many who will disagree with you. (more than fifty percent)
Natan, an expert is any academic whose field of expertise is evolution (or a subject that is closely related to evolution). Now redo your stats…
And to my father's reaction-
Climate Gate is bullshit? You should enrich your knowledge on the case, the e-mail of those experts was hacked, and their disgrace was revealed to the public. It is clear that the earth is warming, the question is whether it is a one-way process or a passing trend (after all, we have no documentation of the situation for more than a few dozen, at most the last hundreds of years ) and what is more difficult is whether the person's part in the case is indeed as presented.
2- We do not know what the conditions were in the universe at the time of the formation of the first living cell, so why assume that they correspond to what we need? Again this is an innocent belief about things we do not know and cannot prove for the purpose of establishing the hypothesis
For the avoidance of doubt, Prof. Auerbach is an expert on an international scale, more so than all the participants of this distinguished panel, including the boss Mr. Avi Blikowski. This man discovered precisely through science that it is in no way statistically possible to assume evolution as it is presented today in science, he says by chance and without the intervention of a superintelligence.
Thanks to Mr. Blikowski for promoting a discussion on this important issue
The skeptic…..
You are mixing "eggs with scales" again.
Opinions differ among those who can be described as the "experts".
The question is if you eliminate those who have the opposite opinion and take away their title of experts.
Who do you think holds the criteria of an expert?
Are they required to be atheists and scientists for the field of evolution only.
Can't professors of mathematics and physics who are not atheists express an opinion of equal weight.
Statistically, most citizens in the US suffer from obesity. They probably know better than the doctors who are the minority. There are also millions of people who smoke cigarettes...
Short, fine, think what you want.
Just remember that you are supposed to statistically check the The experts (How do you emphasize here?) and not the rest of the public...
I left the discussion, it is not progressing anywhere
The skeptic…..
1. Read my last response to Rah.. (77)
2. You conclude incorrectly-
From what you wrote it can be concluded that those who accept evolution are wise and enlightened.
And all the rest do not know how to understand and are unable to think, so they are stuck in error.
Think for yourself if this is statistically true.
Read my response to Abi Blizovsky - one simple and clear proof is needed to close the debate.
Avi Blizovsky
I hope you will adapt the forum to the website so that it maintains its connectivity and uniqueness and does not become another forum.
The design and connection to the content of the articles is very important in my humble opinion.
As for the debate, I personally do not have a coherent opinion on the matter.
I prefer the rational scientific approach.
On the subject of evolution, the problem is that there is too much evidence. A lot of it is just confusion and unnecessary arguments.
The scientific method strives for simplicity and unification.
to try and organize a whole theory under the smallest set of equations possible.
Therefore, millions of proofs are not needed, one decisive one is needed.
Nathan, for the last time, there is conclusive evidence for evolution. There are convincing proofs that the universe and 6000 and man and language are all older than XNUMX years. Nevertheless, there are those who are bothered by this. There is no debate, there is ignorance at best or opacity at worst.
I don't treat evolution like a religion but like Newton's laws. If you negate Newton's laws and tell me they have not been proven, I will answer you exactly as I am answering you now. Why does no one object to Newton's laws? Because it interferes much less with religion (Michael already said all that, didn't he?).
Your logic that not everyone agrees with evolution -> from this it follows that there is an argument is sick logic. You have to ask yourself if among the non-laymen, but who have learned about the subject, how many do not agree with evolution and you will see that the numbers aim for 0.
Indeed, a forum is also planned.
And as for the debate between religion and science, unequivocally there are millions of proofs for evolution, but you insist on closing your eyes and ears. This is why there are believers and opponents in equal numbers (among us there are more opponents, so what, it's like there will be opponents that the earth is round).
Rah…….
The focus of interest is:
1. That the debate itself about evolution is a debate that cannot be decided by conclusive evidence.
In front of everyone who supports the theory there is another who opposes it.
This matter is an ongoing fact.
2. They tried to say here that there is conclusive evidence.
The problem is that you have to measure the persuasiveness of conclusive proof according to a scale that everyone will agree on.
There are different degrees of this, for example the following sentence has a conclusive proof that everyone will admit:
Every triangle can be blocked by a circle and every triangle also blocks a circle.
It's the kind of conclusive proof that can't be disproved.
Does evolution have this kind of proof?! Certainly not because otherwise the argument would be over.
3. This leads to the question of whether the connection to religion is the reason why the debate does not end.
I claim that if there was no conclusive proof then all creationists would have to admit it and find a new way.
Avi Blizovsky
How about expanding the scope of the website a bit for the purpose of the debate itself.
In such a way that the debate here will be one of the stated goals of the site.
You will start by having several threads and debates by topic or article that will be displayed side by side.
The art of debate is deeply rooted in our roots and this will attract more surfers to the site.
And may also contribute to raising the level of responses because there will be less competition for attention.
When several debates are going on at the same time.
What does it look like to you?
to the ancient serpent.
Climate Gate is bullshit. It has already been proven that warming exists, and we see its results on the ground - the melting of the ice at the poles, floods, crazy weather events. Remember that even during the period of uncertainty regarding the effect of cigarettes there were contrary studies or attempts to distort the studies that showed the link between cigarettes and cancer, today we are in a similar situation only that the role of the cigarette manufacturers is being replaced by the oil and coal manufacturers.
As for evolution - read Talk Origin and you will get answers to all your questions. Of course, if we follow the religious view that evolution is only random, then all the time in the universe is not enough for anything, but if it accumulates and the randomness is only in the question of who will continue to pass on the genes and who will not, then very few years are enough
As for the experiment - only 10% of what nature created in billions of years by one scientist in a short period - let's say even in ten years. See it as a success, why do you see it as a failure. Do you know exactly what conditions were like on the early Earth?
I have some issues:
A. Ever since I heard about "Climate-Gate", the biggest scientific gag in history regarding global warming and man's part in it (after the opponents of evolution, apparently) I have not had a grain of faith left in scientists, or more precisely, in the ruling clique. The case proves that they are narrow and self-interested people, that for egoistic reasons they impose their opinion, which they themselves know is false, on the scientific community.
B. Whoever says that evolution is statistically possible, does not take into account the complexity of one protein multiplied by the number of proteins multiplied by the amino acids, in the 13.7 billion years since the big bang, large sections of this time there was still no living cell and large parts were used for the development of species. Anyone who believes in evolution is a fanatical believer in the God of chance.
C. Since the Yuri-Miller experiment provided only 10% of the amino acids, it is proof of the improbability of evolution.
D. The order that exists in all living things, including the fossils, is in no way explained by evolution or natural selection.
God. In any case, the fact that there is gagging in the State of Israel bothers me a lot, why not expose the student to more theses? What are you so afraid of?
Nathan: No one claimed that it doesn't happen all the time. Wherever life began there is evolution.
The problem is that in order for them to preserve life as we cherish it, suitable conditions are needed. The universe is so big that I really believe it happens "trillions of times in the universe at any given moment." But not right after a new star is born, you need a planet. And it also has to be at the right temperature and many other things...
Nathan
I carefully read the comments. And I also follow this debate because the debate interests me.
I still don't understand what you are asking.
Are you ready to briefly write your question? But just one question. Start by asking something
one and you will get answers until you understand and then move on.
Rah…
You did not understand correctly. Read carefully my previous response to Rothschild.
Better read the entire discussion before commenting.
Nathan
Tell me if I understood you correctly:
Do you want conclusive proof of the theory of evolution?
No problem, there are many conclusive proofs, Machal explained them to you.
Why do you refuse to understand them? Or you don't refuse but simply can't understand.
You are arguing about something unclear, you probably did not understand what was explained to you and you do not understand what you are claiming
So it is also impossible to explain anything to you because the explanation will not be related to the question you asked (which you
You don't understand yourself).
The skeptic…..
Of course if it is universal throughout the universe then it occurs every time a new star is born.
Therefore, in terms of the entire space of the universe, the creation of a primary cell from simple elements should be a very common process in the universe.
Now it only remains to estimate what the birth rate of new life-supporting planets is in the entire universe.
from Rothschild—
I don't know what you are angry about. All in all, I pointed out that the debate on this issue will not end as long as there are no conclusive proofs that the opponents will also have to admit.
And in addition, I proposed to expand the site and attract surfers with different opinions to argue about this and other issues.
At the moment the debates here are not a declared matter and receive very little support from the framework that the site currently provides.
Nathan, according to what do you claim that evolution does not happen "trillions of times in the universe at any given moment."?
Nathan:
You're rambling and I'm sick of this stupid argument.
So fine: I and all the scientists claim something that is against the scientific method.
All scientists are wrong and Nathan is right.
The name Nathan (he) God (who doesn't study) A lesson, God bless you (Nathan) blessed
Rah—
The focus of the matter is that the debate on the theory of evolution is not necessarily related to religious beliefs.
Because if there was conclusive proof for the theory, the debate would be over.
In the previous comments I gave examples of the type of proof that would be conclusive enough to close the never-ending debate on this topic.
You chose to comment before reading the main points and you already have an opinion?
You don't need to be a scientist to know that you need to read what the discussion is about before you express your opinion.
Nathan
Maybe the simplest explanation for you would be - that you don't understand the theory of evolution?
If you don't agree with it then it is assumed that you do understand. If so, then it is not clear what you are arguing about.
If you don't understand, then it's not clear to me what you're arguing about here either.
Maybe just try to learn, it's not that complicated to understand the theory at least in the beginning, in the picture
Great.
Avi Blizovsky—
Don't you think that many more life-supporting planets have been created in the universe than the billions of years and trillions of experiments you are talking about. Each of these stars is supposed to produce life according to the theory of evolution.
And so the creation of a primordial single cell must be a much more common affair than its evolution after it is created.
Therefore the earth is not a scale at all and the experiments of the scientists have not yet been able to provide what according to the theory should happen trillions of times in the universe at any given moment.
from Rothschild—
Maybe I wasn't careful with the comparisons. I mean that string theory is self-consistent and its complex mathematics is provable within itself as mathematics.
But what really matters is that you claim something that is contrary to the scientific method.
This method requires the addition of indisputable physical evidence for any theory that deals with the physical world. If you are content with mathematics alone without physical laboratory backing, you are actually going back hundreds of years. For periods when the picture of reality does not require the physical experiment but is content with a mathematical proof. This method has long been unacceptable.
What's more, all the evidence for evolution is based on statistical evidence. And statistics is not a neat and smooth field as we know.
If in any case you are satisfied with proofs devoid of supporting laboratory findings.
I will content myself with the fact that they will intersect exactly as it can be proved that every triangle can be blocked by a circle and every triangle blocks a circle. When you have this kind of proof even if it is only mathematical it might make everyone admit the truth of the theory.
It would be cool to put some bacteria on a spaceship and launch it into space, let it hang around there
A trillion years, maybe something will grow out of it.
Maybe there really are aliens and they have already done it?
Go find out….
Year:
As mentioned - a mathematical proof can only be accepted when the basic assumptions are proven.
Since the basic assumptions of the structure of matter are difficult to prove directly by observation - it is precisely the possibility of creating hydrogen and other elements that serves as a confirmation of the basic assumptions.
Indeed, the issue of the creation of the various elements has been tested experimentally and is used as one of the confirmations for the correctness of the basic assumptions.
Most of these experiments are performed in particle accelerators.
to give Experiments to create life have produced amino acids and slightly more complex chains, when we have the millions of years over the entire surface of the earth to create a single cell, and we can reproduce exactly the conditions that prevailed then, we can create a living being, but the very fact that the building blocks were created so easily indicates So nature must have done this experiment trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times until once it succeeded. There aren't enough scientists doing it, certainly not on the scale that nature had.
It's a shame that you call the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education by the unknown name "Senior".
He is not senior, he is the chief scientist.
Apparently, once he renounced evolution, he is no longer a scientist. automatically
Nathan:
You do not understand the role and power of mathematics.
Is it necessary to do an experiment to know that an apple and another apple will yield two apples?
of course not.
All that is needed is to show that the apples are entities on which the arithmetic of natural numbers works.
As soon as the conditions that a mathematical theorem requires are met - all its results are necessarily met.
All science is built on this because the experiment is a test of whether the prediction of the theory correlates and if the prediction does not - it is not concluded that the mathematics (which created the prediction) does not work but that the basic assumptions are not met.
In fact, the basis of the theory is its basic assumptions, and if their existence is proven, the whole theory is also proven.
String theory - not only does it not have impressive mathematical proofs - it has no proofs at all.
It contains mathematical proofs that say that if certain conditions are met, certain results will also be met, but there is no evidence that the conditions are met.
In fact, most of the mathematical theorems in this theory were created to create testable predictions that, if verified, would confirm the basic assumptions because - as I said - the heart of the theory is the basic assumptions.
This is exactly the difference between string theory and evolution: in string theory it is impossible to test the basic assumptions and mathematics is developed to enable their testing; In evolution - checking the existence of the basic assumptions is very easy, so it is clear that it is correct.
Evolution describes events that take place over hundreds of millions of years and therefore - by definition - a reliable experiment will last hundreds of millions of years.
Despite this, quite a few attempts were made.
For example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
There is, of course, the continuous experience in cultivating animals and plants and in the bacteria overcoming antibiotics, and there is also all the genetic engineering, the very discovery of which is a result of the practice of the theory of evolution.
Added to this are all the thousands of circumstantial evidences, such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
The result - which you continue to inelegantly ignore - is that there is no debate between scientists on the subject - and this - as mentioned - contrary to the theory of relativity.
Michael, thanks for 55
I hope you have the strength to answer me another question, is there a mathematical proof of the necessity of creating hydrogen given certain conditions, and heavy elements, and water?
His lawyer—-
Maybe I didn't read correctly are you claiming that the laws of evolution are not universal.
Is it not working at the ends of the universe 14 billion light years away.
So up to what distance do the laws of evolution hold from the earth.
How many life-supporting planets do you think there should be in the universe?
It seems to me that according to cosmology there should be many more such stars in the universe than the total number of living cells on our planet.
It doesn't seem to you that the range of the laws of evolution covers all these stars.
That's why life must also be created over all of these just as they were created here with us, right?
Year:
No.
Evolution deals with replicators but in principle there can be replicators that are not living cells.
It is not yet known how it all started and we will probably never know because to know how it all started you need at least a time machine.
There is, however, serious speculation on the matter and here it is An example of one of them
from Rothschild—
Evolution is a science that deals with physical reality so that conclusive proof must be physical exactly according to the pattern of proofs provided for quantum theory.
A mathematical proof especially when it is based on statistics does not have enough validity to close the debate.
String theory also has impressive mathematical proofs.
Only they have no value as long as they are not accompanied by a laboratory experiment.
A cutting edge laboratory experiment would be one that would demonstrate the creation of living cells from simple elements.
As I wrote in my response to BEEL….. such an experiment would demonstrate the universality of the theory of evolution.
Because apparently there are certainly many more planets in the universe that may allow the development of life than all the living cells that exist on the surface of the earth.
And if the theory is universal then it is busy most of the time creating a new life from the beginning and not a life from a life.
Nathan
As far as I know, evolution does not talk about the creation of the first living cell at all.
is a theory that starts from a situation where the first living cell is already alive.
So a laboratory experiment in which life will be created from an inanimate object is not at all related to the theory of evolution.
And in my opinion there are laboratory experiments in which a single cell is taken and it multiplies and even mutates.
Michael, regarding 44,
Is it possible to mathematically infer the necessity of evolution even before the creation of replicators?
Nathan:
You just do not understand.
I explained to you that evolution has a mathematical proof.
It has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is a theory that one of its components is random mutations.
But it doesn't matter - neither the validity of the mathematical proof nor the validity of the thousands of confirmations that have accumulated.
You can equally argue that cosmology is not proven because we cannot build a single star.
It's just a stupid approach.
True - the theory of relativity provided many predictions, but what? Among the prophecies she provided there are also wrong prophecies! As, as mentioned, infinite sizes obtained in calculations.
Quantum theory also provides excellent predictions.
In fact, these two teachings are teachings about which there is very little debate in the general public, and there are two reasons for this:
One - as I mentioned - is that your conflict with religion is almost non-existent;
The second is that the general public simply does not understand a thing and a half about them.
Among the scientists, on the other hand, there is actually a debate about them.
Actually there is no debate that both are wrong and there is only a debate about the way to deal with the error.
All the enormous efforts that are invested, for example, in string theory are due to the fact that it is clear to everyone that neither relativity nor quantum theory correctly describe physics.
The situation in evolution is the opposite:
Here there is a head-on collision with religion;
There are no complex mathematical formulas here and many people pretend (many times mistakenly) to understand.
That is why there is a huge debate in the general public, but this debate, as I mentioned, has clear boundaries - it is conducted between scientists and religious people and fans of the religion.
Among the scientists, on the other hand, there is no debate and you will not find among them attempts to build a new Torah that deals with the problems of the old - simply because no problem has been discovered yet!
beel…..
I mean the need to provide conclusive proof that cannot be followed by debate.
Don't tell me that evolution has nothing to say in the beginning section of creating living cells from dead ones.
To create life from life is not conclusive enough proof for the religious stakeholders.
Apart from that, if evolution is a universal law, then the creation of a living cell from simple elements should be much more common if you take into account the infinity of planets that the universe contains.
In every such planet, evolution has to start from the beginning.
Unless you choose to argue that evolution takes place solely in our galaxy and our solar system and nowhere else.
There are many types of conclusive evidence that cannot be disputed.
For example, the claim that every triangle has the property that it can be blocked in a circle and that it blocks a circle.
The above claim can be proven without question in a decisive way.
But I don't require that kind of proof from you.
It is enough if you bring the kind of proofs like those that support the theory of special relativity.
Or like those who support the standard model of quantum theory.
Nathan, creating life in a lab by turning inanimate and living cells won't prove evolution at all. Once you have life in your hands - or at least something that can reproduce itself in an almost, but not perfect, way - you can start experimenting with evolution, as we have been doing for years using living creatures as well as computer programs
from Rothschild-
The theory of relativity provided predictions and enabled the initiation of controlled experiments of various kinds.
Limited relativity did indeed provide more certainty in terms of predictions and testing them in the laboratory than general relativity.
If the theory of evolution would provide the same type and amount of predictions and laboratory experiments as in the reduced relations.
Even if it involved going against religion, the debate would be over.
Unfortunately, the theory of relativity is very far from providing the goods of such high certainty.
Because you can't, for example, create an evolution yourself in a minute in the laboratory from a still state to living cells.
It is certainly possible to think of other types of experiments whose results would strongly indicate its correctness.
As long as you don't have a decisive type of predictions and experiments, the debate is undecided.
his attorney-
Read the above and in addition the statistics in this case are very important.
Because the evidence of evolution relies in many cases on statistics.
And you don't need to be a professor to know that statistics are subject to interpretation.
Nathan
The statistics of how many oppose and how many support evolution is not interesting. And of course not relevant. Science is not a democracy.
The possibility that the majority of people will accept it is not at all a test of theory and certainly not the real test. You have a very, very basic misunderstanding. This is such a basic mistake that I don't think there is anything to continue to address your claims as long as you continue to believe it.
There are correct theories that are not supported by the majority, this does not prevent them from being correct.
But if we do take a little interest in your statistics, then you will notice that your "big group" carries another characteristic. And when such a large group of opponents of a theory bears the same characteristic, it is necessary to look for the problem not only in the theory but, perhaps mainly, in that characteristic.
Nathan:
Absolutely not true!
The theory of relativity has not been proven and there are many more doubts about it than about evolution (among other things - failure to integrate with quantum theory, the need for dark matter and dark energy, calculations that give infinite sizes and more).
Its only advantage over evolution is that it does not conflict with religion.
As mentioned - wherever there is a conflict between science and religion - there is a debate and I am surprised that you did not understand when I said this in my previous response.
I won't argue with you anymore if I don't prove that you read and understood what I said.
from Rothschild-
The facts are that there is a debate about it there is no debate.
It doesn't matter according to which measure you prove that you are right.
The only acceptable proof is that they stop arguing with you.
There are logical or mathematical claims and hypotheses that once proven, the debate is stopped.
Because no one is able to challenge their validity.
The true test of the validity of a theory is that the majority of people who come across it accept it.
Take for example the theory of relativity actually two theories limited and general.
There is no debate about them because their truth has been conclusively proven.
Although today in the wake of cosmological discoveries there are some talks that reexamine relativity.
But there is no debate.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution has as many supporters as opponents.
Therefore, anyone who claims a certain absoluteness for or against in general joins the ranks of one of these groups.
Yigal-
And for the above reasons, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a replacement, we're talking about people living on Earth.
You cannot dismiss the opinion of anyone, certainly not of such a large group.
You can join the queue on the side you choose.
Vigal-
Nathan:
Yigal answered your words well.
In fact, part of the answer is already at the beginning of your words!
You wrote "No theory should be immune to possible change even if the change is radical" and that is true. This is true of all scientific theories and I have no problem with it.
And yet - evolution is more certain than all other scientific theories and this, as mentioned (already dozens of times) because most of it is proven mathematically (!) because it is possible to prove mathematically that if certain conditions are met (as mentioned - the existence of replicators and the existence of competition for resources necessary for survival) evolution will occur.
The existence of replicators is very easy to test and both the genes and living beings meet the definition of a replicator.
The existence of competition for resources is also very easy to check.
As mentioned - under such conditions, evolution is mathematically bound.
There is of course a lot (a lot!!!!) of evidence for its existence.
As I mentioned - the debate is not between scientists but between scientists and religion.
Because of this debate, all academic institutions signed a document. It was simply necessary to make it clear to the public what the opinion of the scientific community is, and this in view of the lies that the promoters of the various religions are selling as if there is a debate in the scientific community.
In fact, you yourself are proof of the effectiveness of the lies that the promoters of the religion sell because you too have bought into their bullshit.
The debate between science and religion takes place whenever a contradiction between them is revealed and it is always a violent debate (because religion is violent - towards science, as towards other religions).
At the beginning of the path of science, they did not know about evolution yet, but religion was afraid of the cosmology that began to develop and divert man from the center of the universe. Galileo paid for it with his freedom and almost with his life. Even today, the echoes of this debate have not yet died down, and rabbis still argue about the age of the world and even try to find or invent scientists who support their views.
And this argument is already ancient and many rabbis have already realized that they will not be able to continue lying about the age of the world and now they have switched to a strategy that claims that it is clear that the world is ancient and that the description of creation in the Torah also corresponds to the big bang which the scientists in their stupidity only discovered now even though it was written in black and white for them Dana.
The field of battle has now shifted to evolution because it is not possible that sages descended from monkeys, but again - as mentioned - this is not an internal scientific debate but rather a debate between religion and science.
If there had been an internal scientific debate, it would not have been possible for all the academic institutions to sign the document I presented.
On the subject of global warming, for example, it is probably not possible to produce a similar document today.
But as Shigall said: if someone presents a scientific alternative to evolution - one that stands up to the test of observation and logic and provides testable predictions - no one will revolt against it as they revolt against Noel's attempt to impose religion on science.
The completely accurate science (according to your wording, Nathan) is something that does not exist and you probably mean scientific theories that stand a constant test (and if they don't - there is a need to formulate alternative theories).
Contradictory views to accepted theories are welcome, but they must meet several criteria: First, they must better explain what the original theory explains. Second, (derived from the first criterion) they are supposed to meet the criteria of scientific reasoning, and hence there must be a way to refute them (even if they are not disproven). Thirdly, if they are disproved, the way is clear for the formulation of alternative theories or a return to the previous theories (which as a result were not disproved).
So far, no alternative theory for evolution has been found (you are welcome to try...).
From Rothschild:
The debate is an undeniable fact.
There are different people here with different opinions.
The debate can be positive because things will be clarified and simplified and as a result people may change their minds.
The positive scientific approach encourages openness to any opinion even if contradictory.
Science as science supports open-mindedness.
No theory must be immune to possible change even if the change is extreme.
In mathematics you can talk about established truths. As soon as you prove a certain theorem or hypothesis
There is no more point in arguing and no one will dispute the result unless you find an actual error.
Evolution does not fit into the same criteria and that is why the debate will continue indefinitely.
As long as the theory is not similar in its properties to a completely exact science.
The very fact that you need to collect signatures on a petition for the sake of the theory proves that this is not closed.
So why shouldn't the site turn in this direction and encourage the debate not through the back door but as a stated goal.
Laren-am (5) - Amoni = of faith
I do not want to refer to the general proposal but only to the opening.
The evolution debate has long been settled.
The scientific community is united on the subject and in front of it stands the religious community which tries - in different, and mostly strange ways, to throw sand in the eyes of mankind.
To know what the scientific community thinks - see a document signed by - more or less - all the academic institutions in the world:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
The entire academic establishment in Israel is also of the opinion that this anti-educational figure should be kicked out of office as soon as possible.
Roi Cezana-
Avi Blizovsky-
from Rothschild-
Dear arguers.
It is evident that the debate about evolution involves a lot of strong emotions.
All articles related to evolution provoke reactions for and against and changing or repeating arguments.
What is clear is that the debate never ends with a decision for either side.
Because evolution is not algebra or geometry.
It's a shame because otherwise it would have been possible to show a definitive answer as it is in mathematics.
----------------
What is the opinion of Avi Blizovsky and the others to expand the site and designate it in a declared and explicit way -
For debates on controversial scientific issues.
Because as it is done today, the debate for the sake of debate has no declared status and actual framework.
but only as a trailing and marginal phenomenon compared to the general framework.
It seems to me that behind the declared scientific goal of the website owners is the undeclared goal
of arguing and opposing opinions that are not in line with the initiators of the site.
If the debate itself will receive framing and support, for example by initiating the presentation of several threads and debate at the same time
related to a certain topic.
Not only as now the last 5 comments, each of which may be related to a debate or other matter.
The mere presentation of several Threads at the same time will make it possible to present to everyone a person's opinion on a certain subject and give
Motivate people to express their opinion before you disappear from the main screen.
You can add a number of things in this direction that will encourage more people to debate and this will also raise the level of discussions because there will be a framework that will allow attention to be directed to more opinions and of course more people behind them.
We, as Jews, have debate rooted in our genes from the beginning, why not take advantage of this for the benefit of all.
Ghost:
Others have been trying to interpret for two thousand years and every time science advances they change the interpretation.
After all, before science discovered the age of the world, none of them thought of counting a day as hundreds of millions of years. Even today most ultra-Orthodox did not understand that this is the only evasion method they can resort to until the next discovery of science.
The whole story is not serious and I have no intention of wasting my time on it.
By the way, his lawyer
I don't know where you got this from: "Another thing, in talking about other planets, did you actually suggest that God also created life and plants and everything else in them?" - I did not say or imply such a thing.
"What is it with you "before it was created as a DHA"? He was created in Genesis. The "day" that we have already defined before comes only after its creation."
Right. In general, man invented the word time. And man also invented something called "dark matter".
These concepts were invented to explain something that according to human senses and logic exists.
And I'm sure you're not one of those who can define with certainty what dark matter is or what time is.
Maybe time was not uniform in the first moments of the universe's formation, maybe there was a "temporary acceleration"
of time-space in the "swelling" process?
Do you have any scientific evidence to the contrary? I would be happy to argue.
Michael and his lawyer
bullshit.
You interpret the Tanach the way a devout religious person interprets evolution.
Without understanding the meaning of the words in context you draw conclusions and are sure that you are
But they are right, even though others have been trying to correctly interpret what is written in your Bible for at least two thousand years.
A little modesty, you don't need to think you know everything.
Besides, you are trying to accuse me of "changing terms", or God not "speaking" clearly.
If so, why do others understand my intention?
Maybe you don't understand what is written in the Torah but think you do?
Ghost
In order to define a day, you don't need to "calculate the movement of celestial bodies".
By the way, this is precisely defined in the Torah: "And the Lord saw the light that it was good, and the Lord distinguished between the light and the darkness. And the Lord called the light day, and for the darkness he called night." From then on, day is the time when the sun shines, and darkness is when it shines elsewhere.
Are you suggesting it is inconsistent? that he initially defines what a day is, and then changes it as he pleases??
By the way, do you doubt that he is omnipotent, if he only wanted he could have created everything in 6 days, as it is written? Why give him 14 billion years?
Another thing, in talking about other planets, did you actually suggest that God also created life and plants and everything else in them?
Besides, what is "before it was created" for you? He was created in Genesis. The "day" we have already defined before comes only after its creation.
Ghost:
Enough with the nonsense.
Before there were humans, the word "day" did not exist.
When you come to talk to people and say "day" you mean what people call a day.
We say that the Big Bang happened 13.5 billion years ago and we do so even though the "years" only formed 4.5 billion years ago. It's because we want to be understood. Imagine that one day they will find out that the big bang is actually 27 billion years old and some wise man will come and say that the years before man was actually double years and therefore the previous calculation was correct. Obviously they would throw him down all the stairs, but that's only because he wasn't a rabbi.
The word day is used by us to measure time. When we talk about six days, we talk - the wonder and the wonder - about six days. When talking about "Mars days" they specifically say "Mars days" so as not to confuse.
All attempts to claim that the meaning of the word yom in the Torah is not the word yom as we understand it are equivalent to interpreting the word yom as "camel".
Do you want to keep believing the bullshit?
You are welcome to believe that the "rabbit" mentioned in the Torah is actually a cow and therefore it does rummage.
You are welcome to believe that the Euphrates and the Tigris actually have a common source, but only righteous people see it and more and more.
If you want to make life comfortable for yourself in terms of the Ten Commandments - maybe you should interpret the word "no" as "only if you feel like it".
Michael regarding response 16:
Our week was defined based on the days of creation. (in the biblical period)
For thousands of years our time has been defined based on the movement of celestial bodies.
I don't know how they calculated the time before they knew how to calculate the movement of celestial bodies and determine according to them.
Apparently the calculations they made back then have a different "meaning" "value" "interpretation" than what is given today.
I want to remind you that according to the laws of science:
On earth a day is 24 hours.
On Mars a day will be a little longer.
And on any other planet that is not like Earth, the day will be of a different length.
Because we live on Earth, so for us a day is 24 hours.
But before the earth was created even about a day had a different value! (including the concept of time)
No, I didn't go to an orthodox school.
Since that's the most logical thing you've written in your comment, so I'll end with that and wish you a good night.
to the cute and annoying troll,
So you have no idea about Judaism either. Every idiot who passed a rabbinical certification is called a rabbi, and in the past every idiot who passed a certification was also called a genius. Read a little on Wikipedia about the period of the geniuses.
I think you recognize yourself now. Don't tell me, you went to an orthodox school. They teach a lot there about how to curse others but very little about how to reach real logic or about history. So you curse without giving a real answer.
You are funny. Did I already mention that?
To commenter 27,29 I will call you "the hiding" (at least come up with a nickname)
"Surely there are people who understand you, because they are the ones who suggested these interpretations."
exactly. They understood my intention and interpreted it correctly in their own response.
"But it's not wise to offer interpretations." - Right, you're right, if you don't have logic why interpret? In any case, you won't understand.
"The real difficulty is reconciling the fact that from now on every time the word 'day' appears in your book it can be interpreted as eternity or as a second or as an hour." –
exactly. And this is what they do - interpret every letter and every word that has been written in the Bible for thousands of years and those who do it best are called rabbis or "geniuses".
Did you notice that I paraphrased your entire comment?
And the result that came out of the "surgery on you" is that you need a doctor who will instill some logic in you.
go search
A little common sense.
Surely there are people who understand you, because they are the ones who suggested these interpretations. But it is not wise to offer interpretations. The real difficulty is reconciling the fact that from now on every time the word 'day' appears in your book it can be interpreted as an eternity or as a second or as an hour. And you're funny, have you ever been told that? A cute little troll who comes to bully and gets angry when answered. Try to get over yourself or you won't grow up to be a real troll.
To the respondent 27
If I were to "play" with terms I doubt anyone would understand me.
The fact is that there are people who understand my views and share my views and understand my interpretations of the terms.
You probably do not understand.
You probably don't make sense.
You just want to confuse the brain.
Go "play" somewhere else you masturbator.
Fun to play with terms, isn't it?
A day is actually a billion years...
or two billion years…
or eternity…
Or two years!
Everything as you see fit. Who needs logic or uniformity, when you can give each word its own meaning?
Let's keep playing:
God is actually a tomato...
Or a bored Bible writer...
Or just a ghost.
I believe that in Hebrew evolution is an elective course, but of course you study in additional courses...
his lawyer
What I said I relied on understanding the context that I read in the Torah.
According to what you determine:
"I guess you should now be in the two billion years of the seventh day's rest."?
How did you determine that the seventh day is a day of rest for two billion years?
Maybe the seventh day lasts forever?
Maybe the sixth day lasts a thousand years and the fifth day lasts a billion years?
Do you already know how to calculate the differences?
And I find it appropriate to reiterate:
The ones who will kill us are not the liars but those who try to give truth and lies equal status.
Our Tanach is a masterpiece that contains moral values, laws, regulations, love and war stories
and even historical facts,
That is why it is a shame that Prosho was robbed by "fantasy" ignoramuses who are unable to distinguish between religious belief and facts,
Between presenting things abstractly and facts, between trying to determine a way to drive rivets.
The debate about whether those commentators is pointless,
It has already been said that:
A fruitful discussion is conducted by exchanging ideas,
When there is a debate between ideas and facts,
The fruitfulness of the discussion is impaired.
ghost moon
If you equate the 14 billion years with the six days of creation, I guess you should now be in the two billion years of the seventh day's rest.
Your argument is exactly the one I talked about in (7) when I said that "the believer will bend the religion". I hope your nights are good.
Physicist
I tend to agree, the column is somewhat weak. Assaf's column, on the other hand, is already really tainted with hate. This professor did succeed in undermining some people here.
Too bad, Roy usually has interesting columns.
It's not that God doesn't know Hebrew - the definitions for these words in Hebrew didn't exist yet! And it is not that the rabbis interpret the Hebrew errors - these are not Hebrew errors, because the language as we know it did not yet exist, and this is not ridiculous - the rabbis study the Bible and know it, they learn these things according to contexts, repetitions, and things that you do not know - because you didn't study... but they don't make it up - everything is based, like analyzing a book in literature...
And by the way - basing it on the fact that the rabbis know how to interpret God's Hebrew errors is even more ridiculous.
Someone and Anonymous:
I'm not ridiculous.
Basing yourself on the fact that God does not know Hebrew is ridiculous.
Michael Rothschild,
On the first day there were no humans and there was neither the sun nor the moon. It makes sense that "day" can be interpreted as something else.
In the Bible there are even several references to the "days" of God, which can be a thousand years or even millions.
The same goes for other things like the "big crocodiles". You are an advocate of your way of life and it makes sense for you to choose
Interpret the Bible in your own way. Literally it is not always possible to interpret and it is a very difficult transcript in my experience. I was
I suggest you learn from those rabbis you hate so much and try to run away from, after all they are the ones who studied the book more than you and the other "scholars".
wait,
despair
Michael:
Don't be ridiculous, you have to convert the six days into a unit of time, so it is really conceivable that what was then called six days today is billions of years - after all, counting the years according to the directions of the sun or the moon is only in the last thousands of years... This can also explain how it is written in the New Testament For example, people lived for hundreds of years... it's hundreds of years for him like ours but shorter...
Ghost:
You change the meaning of words and if you allow yourself to do so you have no right to define how much it is permissible to change them.
By the way - if the days are hundreds of millions of years old then why does our week include normal days? After all, it was defined based on the days of creation!
This whole attitude that is based on the fact that God does not know how to speak intelligibly is in my opinion stupid to God.
Michael
In relation to your 13th response
I compare "currency names" and "value of time".
You are comparing "value of time" versus "a sum of objects", therefore your opinion does not make sense.
Weak, and infected with hatred of the foreigner (a foreigner in the sense of someone who perceives the world and life differently from you). Mr. Cezana, science is not and never will be omniscient. Furthermore, the science you know today will be frowned upon by forgiving eyes in so-and-so years.
Ghost:
And in my opinion - 6 days is a total of 12 concrete trucks.
Michael
In relation to your 9th response
You have to understand the context in which the things were said, it's like comparing a pound to a shekel,
The meaning "in 6 days" can be interpreted today as "about 14 billion years".
The first 6 days of creation are not necessarily equal to the 6 days of now.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Yair, apparently the Mishna and Sefer Zohar were written by Greeks.
Kotter Kadaha was thought with surprising precision by a Greek philosopher hundreds of years before the Mishna was written...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_earth.27s_circumference
Evolution is touched upon when teaching ecology and when teaching genetics. Mutants are also talked about when teaching biochemistry and drug resistance in microbiology. But there is no organized compulsory course that gives an overview of the theory. it's a problem. Much has been added to the theory since Darwin introduced natural selection, since Mendel dealt with peas and since Hardy & Weinberg dealt with equilibrium...
Year:
If you ever want to learn the facts about Beech, you can find some of them here:
http://daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=16
It is interesting how a story of evolution over billions of years does not contradict a story of creation over six days.
It turns out that religion simply turns off logic.
Fathers - I checked in the yearbook of the Hebrew University... but probably every university and its program.
Yair
Sometimes people here do exaggerate, and the hatred does seem too great.
On the other hand, to claim that evolution and religion are not a contradiction is an attempt to smear and belittle the intelligence of believers.
So it's your fault too.
In a method where there is no contradiction between the ideas, nothing will ever be able to contradict the religion, because the believer will bend the religion, will understand the science in the wrong way and will grasp for subtle formulations instead of understanding the spirit of the things that the scholars are trying to say. At the end of the day he might be able to sleep better, but that won't really solve the conflict between them.
Roy, unfortunately the hatred of religion can damage cognitive ability.
I went through the article in question and looked for what you claimed Dr. Deti "dark" said.
The earth is flat…. This is what Prof. Chava Yablonka tried to put into his mouth.
The Earth is warming... Hader does not deny the scientific fact that the Earth is warming, he goes against the populist consensus that man is connected to change! And I'm quoting from the article "Dr. Gabi Avital, last week attacked the broad scientific consensus regarding the connection between human activity and climate change" note, "regarding the connection between human activity and climate change".
For your convenience, a link to an interview conducted with Dr. at the Meir Institute on the topic of people of faith in the world of action http://www.meirtv.co.il/site/content_id.asp?id=10492
I spent 26 minutes of my time listening to the interview with Hadar. The allegations made there are not so compatible with the allegations made against him.
He says in a minute (13:44) that Darwin's theory was used for ideological purposes, he brings in the name of Prof. Shmuel Bergman the use that the Nazis made of the foundations of Darwin's theory. The entire interview revolves around the matter of ethics and the separation of science from the religious context. That is, using science without a soul and responsibility can lead to painful results.
By the way, his claims against the introduction of the connection between human actions and global warming without presenting a balancing opinion stem from children's complaints about traumas and fears to the point of sleep disturbances.
In short, dear Roy, I suggest that you go back to Sinta-Barr's stories, much more interesting and enriching.
Do you also think sometimes, or are you just busy hating religious people?
I suggest you relax a bit.
And by the way, regarding the round earth, it is written in the Mishnah and the Zohar, and yes, even then the educated treated the Jews with disdain.
Neither evolution nor global warming are a contradiction to the Torah, however, secular people must believe in the religion of evolution in order to remain secular, so those who can really study these theories and not be influenced by preconceived beliefs are actually the religious.
You didn't understand - what is an omnis argument?
Sorry to break Shlomi's theory but, at Ben Gurion, evolution is a required undergraduate course. At least that's how it was when I studied biology there.
Regarding the unwise executive: on the subject of global warming, the opinions are indeed divided. The problem is that his argument is supremely stupid, because it is a faith argument. Regarding evolution, his basic error is in the lack of distinction between evolution as a fact and the theory of natural selection as an explanation, even if not the only one as the driving force of evolution.
Evolution not mandatory in biology?
Evolution, not mandatory in biology?!
Evolution is not mandatory, in biology?!?!
No matter how you read it, it sounds absurd...
I don't understand technically how you can teach anything in biology without evolution. Without evolution all knowledge in biology is a collection of facts without context.
It's like learning music from sheet music only, without even hearing a single piece played.
On the other hand, I'm not really surprised, in many technical faculties, engineering is taught only on paper, without requiring and sometimes without providing students who are interested with opportunities for practical experience.
Sad sad but what is happening in the universities? It turns out that those who take the life sciences course (Yaani biology) evolution is only an elective course. A student can leave with a bachelor's degree in biology without knowing about evolution.
So there is nothing to be surprised at all that evolution is not taught in high school or that there is so much intimidation about it, the scientific community has not yet decided to anchor evolution as a compulsory course in life science studies.
After a long conversation with someone who went through the research track in biology, I received a response of "this is just a theory" and in fact what is interesting today is everything (biotechnology for example). And perhaps the problem of the life sciences (as it appears to me) is in the approach. It may be a certain difficulty to bridge between different levels of complexity when trying to derive prophecies from the closest thing to natural law (evolution) that they have. And maybe not... what do you think?
Giant!!! And so true.
Personally, I am ashamed to live in this country. A country that democratically elected a bunch of idiots to lead it.