Comprehensive coverage

Survey: 70% support evolution studies - 66% in Jewish schools, 89% in Arabs

The most prestigious professions: medicine and science

Teaching evolution in schools. Illustration: shutterstock
Teaching evolution in schools. Illustration: shutterstock

(Editor's note - once again we find that the state schools in the Arabic language surpass the Jewish ones in everything related to the sciences. The CBS reports a consistent decrease since 2000 in the number of teachers and study hours for the sciences - especially chemistry. It appears from the CBS survey Because the number of teachers and teaching hours in science in the Jewish sector has decreased absolutely over the past 15 years. In mathematics, there was an increase, but even this does not catch up with the increase in the number of students; * Many of the math teachers are nearing retirement and the new teachers come from non-scientific professions. By the way, the improvement in the schools in the Arab sector is very important, but there is no reason why the state Jewish sector, which also only counts About 35% of the number of students, will lag).

A survey conducted by the Ministry of Science ahead of Science Day shows that 70% of respondents support the study of evolution in schools. In the Jewish public, the support rate is slightly lower - about 66%. Among the religious and ultra-Orthodox, about 19% are in favor of studying evolution, while in the Arab sector, the rate of support for studying this subject reaches 89%.

61% percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement that the universe was created in a big bang and that humans evolved from creatures that preceded them. This is compared to 39% of Americans who agreed with the Big Bang - 48% who agreed that man evolved from primitive creatures, in a parallel survey in the USA. Here, in the religious and ultra-orthodox sector, only 19% support the big bang theory, and only 27% agree with the idea of ​​evolution. In other scientific issues, no real differences were discovered between the secular and religious sectors.

Career for children

The survey data also shows that Israeli parents are most interested in their children becoming high technology professionals. Following them in the ranking of professions that parents prefer for their children: engineers, doctors, scientists (down from second place last year), businessmen, accountants, military officers, lawyers, teachers, bankers, social leaders and members of the Knesset. In the last places on the list: athletes, clergy, journalists, police officers and entertainers. With that, science and medicine are still seen as the most prestigious professions and the most contributors to the country's resilience.

485 תגובות

  1. Better than 800

    We will also settle for 80.

    And here's another idea:

    Do you know any device whose INPUT will be 10 kilohertz and the OUTPUT will be around the Giga? That way, with a bit of luck, I can broadcast on a regular radio and see the scope with nano precision.

    I saw

    But it seems to me that he needs a high input frequency.

    Good night.

  2. Israel
    Assuming your transmission frequency is in the Giga range - you need a line of sight between the transmitter and the receiver.
    Now - the time that passes from transmission to reception is 0.3 milli, that is 300,000 nanometers. The error due to the refractive index of air will be about 100 ns. Are you aware of that?

    What I would do is place the transmitter and receiver at the same point, and place a corner reflector 50 km away. That way you can put a fast counter, start it in transmission and stop it in reception. Another possibility is to place a responder at a great distance, and measure his dwell time separately. In any case, I would use a laser rather than radio waves. It is very easy to modulate such a horn.

  3. Miracles

    The transmission should be for a distance of 100 km.

    The speed of the devices is not important, as long as it is constant.

    Technically, which watch will be able to tell me the arrival time of the signal? how?

    The oscilloscope does this, but it is only clear to microseconds. I need a nano.

  4. Arya/Israel
    You are talking about modulation of audio broadcasts. In WiFi, a bandwidth of close to a gigabyte is transferred, at frequencies that are single multiples.

    To measure such times, you need equipment that is faster than the measured time. You will need a clock with this precision, a fast receiver, a fast amplifier, a fast switch... and all these are in a column..

  5. lion

    You're probably right.

    I am broadcasting now on 400 mega FM. Above 10 kHz modulation, the received signal is distorted.

    Let's try another technique.

    Does anyone have an idea how to know the reception time of the signal with an accuracy of nano to pico? The oscilloscope is inconclusive below a few microns.

  6. It is impossible to modulate information at a certain frequency, on a frequency that is only double of it. For example, AM and FM broadcasts on conventional radio are made at frequencies that are on the order of a thousand times the sound frequencies transmitted over them. It is possible to transmit the information by radio without modulation, using a broadband transmitter / receiver / antenna. The feasibility depends on the bandwidth (depending on the frequency range and rate of change) that you want to transmit, the reception distance and other parameters.

  7. Israel
    As I said, if the transmission frequency is at least double the modulated frequency, you will be able to transmit and receive the signal.
    Note that at high frequencies, several gigabytes, the signal starts to be directional. I don't know if that's what you want or not.

  8. Miracles

    Right. Technically, a receiver that receives say two gigabytes, will be able to receive a modulated signal at 800 megabytes? Do you have any experience to share?

  9. Israel
    An 800Mhz device transmits at this frequency. If you want to modulate a signal at this frequency, you will need an even higher frequency device, in principle at least twice as much. It's already WiFi frequencies, wireless phones and airplanes. Is that your intention?

  10. A reply I sent to Avner Weizman:

    Hello Avner and thanks for the response.

    In my opinion, reference to one camera does not solve the paradox. As you mentioned, there are double the number of cars of train B in the image of camera A, and therefore, because of the symmetry, double the number of cars of train A in the image of camera B.

    Let's say you are at rest above the A train and you are taking a video of it. Due to the limitations of the image, you will only be able to see cars 1-10. Cars 11 and above will never be seen in the frame from the video. Photons from them will not be able to reach it. On the other hand, 20 cars from Train B will be shown in each frame.

    If we take the video taken by viewer B at rest relative to train B, the situation is reversed.

    Therefore, when viewer B arrives at the same point where viewer A is, the frame from his video will show 20 cars from train A, which necessarily also include cars 11 and above from train A, those cars from which photons never reach viewer A.

    But observer B is in the exact same place as observer A, at the same moment, and his camera is pointing directly down like observer A. Why do photons that do not reach observer A actually reach him and vice versa?

  11. lion

    It is not an 800MHZ device, it is quite simple to obtain.

    It is about the fact that the transmitted signal has a cycle of 800MHZ, approximately 100,000 times the signals transmitted by normal radios, and 40,000 times what we are able to hear.

    There is no problem producing such a cyclical signal using a suitable device, the question is how it can be transmitted and received.


  12. It seems to me that you need much higher accuracy than 5ns.
    And even then it will not solve the problem but will only prove what you claim and what is acceptable. And that's at best. (Although I think that's what it will be).

  13. The cameras are in a different space.
    Still everything obeys the same rules.
    For viewers to see different images is one thing. The second thing is that the cameras obey the same law... it's a paradox.
    But when it comes to one camera it proves that space is also more flexible and does not always obey known laws just like the elusive photon when in superposition…………..?

  14. I can only answer question 3.

    My experiment is trying to see if there is a correlation between the distance from the source of electromagnetic radiation, the reception time of the electromagnetic signals in different devices, and the rotation speed of the antenna as in the GPS experiment I conducted.

    You may have brought me luck. A few minutes ago I managed to synchronize the signals with an accuracy of 5NS.

    Return to the oscilloscope.

  15. That is, space cannot be separated from time. But how to solve the problem? You probably have to approach from a completely different direction to get to the technical experiment that will provide a scientific solution...
    We need a new, modern, up-to-date model, for the time and space problem, don't we?
    How does your experiment answer this problem? Again, you asked Tam.

  16. Miracles

    Not true, not true and not true.

    1. It is not true that "one photon is emitted when carriage "1" passes by carriage "1", and a second photon is emitted when carriage "10" passes by carriage "10".

    Photon 3 is emitted from car 10 in train 1, and photon 4 is emitted from car 20 in train 2. Both are emitted together, at the moment of contact between the cars.

    2. It is not true that there is a connection to the question. The question was whether all 4 photons would reach the viewer at the same time. The answer is yes.

    3. It is impossible for the cars to be photographed at the same length if in the image of observer 1 we only see photons from cars 1-10 in train 1, but photons from cars 1-20 in train 2.

  17. Trotsky

    Apparently the crocodile is greener, because it is long only lengthwise and green both lengthwise and widthwise.

    This is a correct answer for cucumbers. Crocodile, on the other hand, you can go lengthwise and go back over the stripes in the crocodile skin so that you get two lengths that are more than length and width and therefore it is actually longer.

    I tried to transmit, above 20 KHZ the signal disappeared. Probably a technical problem.

    The shortening of the length is a question of essence. The shortening of the length complements the lengthening of the times. There is a debate as to whether it is purely theoretical, but relativity is incomplete without it.

    The optical solution is that the structure and operation of the camera determines what is seen in the image, while practically all photons hit the lens, from all the cars. The fact that the viewer sees only a part of them in the image is due to the operation of that specific camera, while a different camera will transmit different photons, and therefore we will receive different images with identical cameras moving relative to each other, even though they are shooting at the same moment in the same point and in the same direction.

  18. Israel
    Ok. They are simultaneously in a discount system. They are not timed in the drive system.
    In the propulsion system, one photon is emitted when carriage "1" passes by carriage "1", and a second photon is emitted when carriage "10" passes by carriage "10".
    So the two carriages will be photographed at the same length, as the Englishman said.

    Where is the paradox?

  19. Israel
    More green... 🙂 🙂 You don't have to 🙂
    Why 800mhz? Budget constraints? Technological limitations? Your question is over.

    For his purposes,
    As in superposition - could the answer be an image in the observer? In the end, isn't this a purely technical issue but a question of essence? I mean philosophically? Is space, like time, relative to the viewer? How do you approach the solution of the optical problem?

  20. and…?

    I claimed that they are at the same time in the drive system? I mentioned that the time of car 20 is different from car 1 in train 2 when they are ejected, so are they at the same time?

    What I am saying is that they will reach viewer A and viewer B at the same time, but A's time is different from B's.


  21. Israel
    You said that the photons are temporal in the rest system. If so, they are not simultaneously in the drive system.

  22. Trotsky

    It's like with the alligator, remember? Is it longer or greener?

    So which is longer: the sword than the sickle, or the ax that Stalin put in Trotsky's head?

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence of the length shortening. The topic is quite confusing, even Avner's answer. He claims that in the photo train B will be shortened and therefore we will see twice the cars of train B, while Penrose says that there is no length shortening in the photos. In Bell's Spaceship Paradox the researchers at Cern before whom the problem was presented expressed conflicting opinions. So how do we know?

    Best to experiment. How do you transmit and receive an 800MHZ periodic signal?

  23. Israel
    We started with that I was wrong. We moved on to talking about a single shot of the two trains. I said that there is a problem with photography because a very short exposure is needed, so it is better to talk about single photons. You talked about 4 photons being transmitted at the same time and I explained that there is a problem here - inertia depends on the reference system.

    Two photons are emitted simultaneously when "1" carriages overlap. Two photons exit as "10" cars overlap.

    So - in the photo, the 2 trains are the same length.

  24. Miracles

    What is similar in what you said to what Avner says?

    You said that every viewer will see a different picture. Avner does not refer to the second photo but only to one: that of Camera A. In my opinion, he missed the paradox, because we are not interested in the different interpretations of each viewer of the image, but in the images themselves. And they cannot show the same thing, because as Avner pointed out, there are double the number of cars of train B in the image of camera A, and therefore, because of the symmetry, double the number of cars of train A in the image of camera B.

    The paradox is that they took the same moment (the moment of the suit) and the same photo. If, as I have shown, cars 11 and above of train 1 will not be seen in the image of viewer 1, how come they will be seen in the image of viewer 2?

    I think the solution is in optics.

    Question: Do you or someone know how to transmit a periodic signal (sine for example) at a high frequency, let's say 800MHZ?

  25. 'Sharel
    Which proves that time is relative.. 🙂
    But is the length the same? That is, the space..

  26. Miracles, Peugeot and Bijou.

    In the meantime, a reply came from Weizmann:

    It is important to understand what exactly is meant by the camera and what exactly is meant by 'at that moment'. To formulate the question well, it is necessary to clarify how exactly the camera works. A certain model for a camera can be, for example, a body of length L that receives light that reaches it at a right angle. The camera has a synchronized internal clock that allows all parts of the camera to open and shoot at the same time. Of course this 'same time' is the same time in the camera system.

    As we will see, the important point in solving relational paradoxes is to tell the story in both reference systems and see that both agree on the final result (even though the details, the order of events, etc. may be different).

    For this we can be satisfied with one camera (camera A) and describe what the resulting image will be according to each of the viewers.

    We will mark the length of each car with X and the relative speed with V, in the absence of Greek letters we will mark Gamma with G.

    Observer A will describe the story as follows: the length of each car in train A is X and the length of each car in train B is X/G. The camera picks up a length of L, so the picture will show L/X cars from train A and GL/X cars from train B.

    Observer B will describe it this way: the length of each car in train A is X/G and the length of each car in train B is X. The camera perceives a length of L/G (because it also shortens). The camera's internal clock is not synchronized and there is a time difference between the moment the different parts are photographed. The time difference between the two extreme parts is t=VLG/C^2. Therefore what observer B sees is this: train B is at rest, camera A is moving at speed V. At a certain moment the front part of the camera starts to take pictures, the camera continues to move and only after time t does the last part of the camera take pictures. The length from train B that camera A recorded is the length of the camera plus the distance it managed to advance until the end of the photo, which is L/G+V^2LG/C^2=LG.

    The number of train B cars that will be in the picture is GL/X. The number of cars from train A that will be in the picture is still L/X because train A moves together with the camera.

    The conclusion is that both viewers will agree on the image that will be in the camera even though the story they will tell is completely different. Viewer A will say that train B is shorter and therefore has more of its cars in the picture. Observer B will say that train A is shorter, but the camera and train A moved during the shooting so that it appears in the picture that train B is shorter.

    Hope I helped,

    Avner Karsik
    Faculty of Physics
    Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics
    Weitzman Institution of Science

  27. Israel
    Train 2 emits a first photon from car "1" when cars "1" overlap, and another photon from car "10" when these cars overlap.

    In this case, in the photo we will get that they are really the same length.

  28. Israel
    Both photons in train 2 leave at the same time in the discount axis system, right? So, they don't leave at the same time on train 2. Agree?

  29. Piso

    If you received a 404 error link, then it is due to a malfunction, as in the 404 piezo. Try later, OP has a problem with the system.


    Let's put some order in the systems, because each system sees itself as subordinate and the other as subordinate.

    The discount system will count the country and you sitting in a hot air balloon 3 km above it (Pizd, drawing miracles with a balloon!).

    Underneath it is track 1 and on it a train as long as the length of the exile, train 1, which will be considered resting. Her clocks are synchronized with each other and with a miracle clock. Since Nissim is the vertex of the equilateral triangle with cars 1 and 10 on train 1, it is equidistant from cars 1 and 10 (Pizd, drawing of the vertex of Nissim!).

    Parallel to rail 1 is rail 2, which is also resting.

    On track 2 is traveling train 2 which is considered to be moving. Its clocks are synchronized with each other but not with train 1 clocks.

    The 4 photons we talked about are emitted at instant 0 in train clocks 1, which is also shared by a hot air balloon. Therefore they will reach it together. Moment 0 is not shared by car 20 on train 2, from which a photon was also emitted, but in terms of miracles, the only thing that changes is the color of the photon, which turns slightly yellow.

    Therefore the sentence: "If the photons are emitted simultaneously in a drive system from different points then they are not emitted simultaneously in a discount system" is true - the Krone 20 clock shows a different time than the other clocks - but is not relevant. All 4 photons will arrive together to Nisim, and also to the passing observer (Bizo) who is at rest relative to train 2.

  30. Israel
    The optical solution? You mean normal relationship? Does that mean that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with solving the problem?
    The link still doesn't work. There may be a problem with my computer. Can you send the professor's answer?

  31. Israel
    That's exactly the point, I understand. If the photons are emitted simultaneously in a driving system from different points then they are not emitted simultaneously in a reductive system. As we like - quote from Wiki:

    According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. For example, a car crash in London and another in New York, which appear to happen at the same time to an observer on the earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York .

  32. According to the data of the problem, all 4 photons are emitted at the same moment and from the same distance, so you will see them together.

    But that is not the point. The point is that you will never see photons emitted from cars 11 and above on the 1 train.

    But the viewer who is at rest relative to train 2, will see them the moment the suit passes by you and will even take a picture of them.

    But how can that be? You both photographed the same situation at that moment. So how did you get reverse photos?

    The solution, in my opinion, is optical.

  33. Israel
    Yes, I understand the question. I will see the two cars No. 1 in the same place. And I have to sleep a night before I understand what is happening in cars No. 10. My feeling is that I will see the flash from car No. 10 on the train later. The two flashes are simultaneous in the drive train but not in the discount train system.

  34. do you love So what do I say?

    You are not at the station. You are a few kilometers above the train, hovering in a hot air balloon. Train No. 1 is at rest below you, and its clocks are synchronized with each other. Car #1 and her car #10 are equidistant from you, and together you form an equilateral triangle. We will skip the locomotives.

    When you take a picture of the train, which has countless cars, you realize that in the photo you only see car #1 on the right and car #10 on the left. Carriage No. 11 and above are not included in the picture because of its disability.

    Train 2, whose clocks are synchronized between them, emerges with a thud from the left. When its car #1 reaches car #1 in train 1, a photon is emitted from car #1 in each train. The time in car clocks 1 in every train 0.

    At that moment in the clocks of train 1, time 0, a photon was also emitted from car #10 in train 1 and the car next to it from train 2, which is car #20. The time in the clock of car 20 train 2 is not 0.

    All four photons reach you at the same instant, because they were emitted at the same instant (0, train 1) and are the same distance away from you.

    This is how you photograph photons from cars 1 and 10 on train 1, and cars 1 and 20 on train 2. You never see cars 11 and above on train 1.

    So far acceptable?

  35. Israel
    As your friend says - I will be embarrassed, so try to explain to me slowly. Let's say I'm standing at the station. One train is standing at the station, its locomotive next to me and is a light minute long. A second train of the same length enters the station at gamma = 2, as soon as this locomotive is next to me - I take a picture.

    Our camera must shoot with the shortest exposure, right? Therefore, it is not possible for the camera to pick up the end of the moving train next to the end of the discount train - because it takes time for the light to arrive. Where am I wrong?

  36. Our Israelis
    It's better if you continue to discuss this with the professor
    And continue to bring us his reactions..
    Otherwise you look like a teacher teaching the idiot student who is unwilling to learn his idiot.
    Yip from the collective farm would say: Pizdets!
    By the way, the page you referred us to does not exist. Probably the link is wrong. I would appreciate it if you could send another source where we can read the professor's response. Thanks.

  37. Even in close-up photography, the edges are elongated. That's why we consider the perspective.

    It seems to me that we deviate from the essence of the paradox. It is that if in the picture of train 1 alone you see on the right side the locomotive of train 1 and on the left side car 10 of train 1, then in a joint picture with train 2 you will see locomotive 2 next to locomotive 1, and car 10 of train 1 next to car 20 of train 2 .

    Do you get it?

  38. Israel
    I said... I'm not arguing with Sir Roger Penrose in the field he excelled in... but do you agree with me that without relativity the train gets longer?

  39. Let's try this:

    Scenario 1: Train 1 is standing and I am photographing it from a height of 2 km. I see at the right end of the picture the locomotive and at the left end the car 10 (which cars are long).

    Scenario 2: The same, but train 2 passes by at such a speed that the gamma factor is equal to 2.

    If I managed to synchronize the photo so that on the right end I see the two locomotives together, what will I see on the left end?

  40. Israel
    Exactly - you will see a photon that left first, which means the train will look longer!

    Now if we introduce a relative correction, we will probably get what Penrose said - the train will look the original length.

    By the way - there are cameras that work with a similar idea, for shooting through haze and smoke. The camera knows the desired shooting range, has a strong flash and a short exposure, and only captures photons in the selected range.

  41. Miracles

    So you'll see another photon that came out first.

    Why do you think that if you photograph trains from above you will not see anything in the photograph?

    Unless you mean the specific photon argument - in this case it is, as I mentioned, that the camera is at the same distance from both ends of train 1 and is at rest relative to it, so that the photons from the locomotive and car 10 reach it at the same moment, together with the photons from the locomotive of train 2 and car 20 of train 2.


    This is the valley train. The locomotive of the Tel Aviv Railway - BS, 7040014, has long been in the cemetery. asked the bartender.

  42. Israel
    Think of a photon leaving the end of the train as soon as the locomotive is underneath - when will it reach me? More than a minute, right? Therefore, the camera will not pick up this photon. That is - I will not see the end of the train at the expected angle - 45 degrees.

  43. Miracles
    On a smiling note, which train do you mean? For the night train to Cairo or the Tel Aviv Beer Sheva train? Give some room for self-humor. Trust me it helps a little to keep sanity in our crazy world. We are no longer far from sliding from a psychotic state to a state of a neurotic attack..

  44. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by non-relativistic calculation.

    Do you mean that the speed of the photons adds to the speed of the train in a normal vector connection like the bullets fired from the train? In that case your argument about extra time for light to reach the ends of the train also holds when the train is at rest if you look from top to bottom in the vertical direction connecting you to the train, doesn't it?

    I referred the paradox to Prof. Granot, he usually gives good answers. Today he also answered the question of receiving the radio signals from my space, so let's hope that he will soon answer this question as well.

  45. Israel
    At exactly 12 o'clock the locomotive in front of me. Within a minute, light from the locomotive reaches me, therefore, if I shoot at 12:01, I will receive this light. But….. the light from one end of the train will arrive only after another 25 seconds. So the train will look longer...

  46. At half C, the train shortens by about 13%, and that's what the photo will show.

    If the gamma factor is equal to 2, you will see it at half length.

    This is if we start from the assumption that the journey is continuous. What you saw is how she looked a minute ago.

    Your way first with the individual photons is better in my opinion. When the moving train passes the discount train, photons are emitted from the overlapping locomotives and the overlapping cars at that moment according to the discount train clocks (best 0).

    Therefore, since the propulsion train was shortened in the Naha train system, the photons that will arrive from it will be from cars whose number is as large as the gamma factor rate (the best is 2, so that for every 10 Naha cars we will get 20 Bana cars).

    And so there is no doubt that the photo will show the drivetrain 2x shorter, because the photo is made up of pixels that have been affected by photons. The photograph shows the 2 locomotives together side by side, and the resting car 10 and the moving car 20 together side by side.

    If the photograph had also shown the train clocks, it would have shown time 0 in the clocks of the discount train and the locomotive, but a different time in the moving car 20.

    But for our purposes, the photo will show 2 moving cars for every moving car.

  47. Israel
    Let's think about it without relativities. Let's say I'm a light minute above the track, and the locomotive crosses right under me at 12:00. The train is a light minute long, at a speed of half c. I take a photo at 12:01. I will see the locomotive right below me - but where will I see the tail of the train? I mean, what will be the length of the train in the photo?

  48. Why?

    What's the problem with photographing a train from a height of several kilometers?

    If, as we said, the gamma factor is 1,000,001, then for every 1000,000 cars, in train 1, you will see 1,000,001 cars in train 2. It is also possible with millimeter years.

    So what will the photo from the second camera look like? Just that.

  49. The camera has no time difference. The shot in your example will show a flash from only one end of the train, or from the other, or both together if you aimed well.

    In video, on the other hand, you will see a difference of up to a year between the flashes, depending on the condition of the video relative to the train.

    I'm talking about a camera, not a video.

  50. Israel
    I became religious - constantly changing the terms of the question.

    Let's take a simple example - a stationary camera and a train moving at high speed, so gamma = 2. Let's assume the train is a light year long. As soon as the locomotive crosses a point a hundred light years away there is a flash of light from both ends of the train. What will be the time difference between the flashes for the camera?

  51. So you are saying that two cameras passing each other will not pick up the same photons at the moment of the switch? How is this possible? What if the relative speed between them is small?

    It seems to me that you are confusing the times of the clocks on the trains with those of the cameras. example:

    When train 2 passes train 1 at time 0 on train 1's clocks, car number 1 is in front of car no. 1 in train 2, and car no. 10 in train 1 is in front of car no. 20 in train 2.

    If we take the same moment from both trains we will see the following scenario:

    Photo 1: Car 1, train 1, time 0. Car 1, train 2, time 0.

    Photo 2: Car 10 train 1 time 0. Car 20 train 2 time 3.

    The photos are the same from both trains.

    If, when a car touches a car, a photon is emitted from each car towards the distant viewers, both of whom are at the same distance from cars 1 and 10 in train system 1, then all 4 photons will reach the viewers at the same moment according to the clocks of each viewer, although their color will change for the viewer moving relative to them.

    Never mind the fact that the time of car 20 on train 2 is different from the other cars. The Lorentz transformation will offset the difference.

  52. Israel
    Any camera will show that the drive train is shorter. They do not absorb the same photons, so there is no paradox here.

    You can't shoot photons that arrive at different times. The exposure must be very short.

  53. Camera 1 and the stopwatch connected to it, will see that the signals coming out of train 1 arrived at that exact moment. This is if we start from the assumption that every signal on train 1 came out from a relatively equal distance to the camera.

    The signals coming out of train 2 moving relative to the same camera will reach it at different times. But because of the symmetry, the signals will reach camera 2, which is moving relative to camera 1, at the same moment according to camera 2's clocks.

    But that is not the point.

    The point is that the cameras will see something, won't they?

    So you say what they will see.

  54. Israel
    If they are simultaneous in the drive system, then they are not simultaneous in the rest system. This is a basic result in special relativity.

  55. Miracles

    Each train is at rest from its point of view and from the point of view of the viewer who is at rest relative to it.

    "The problem is that the camera will not receive two flashes that went out at the same time. it's clear?"


  56. Israel
    Of course there is a train. Regarding each viewer, but we will ignore the discount train. The problem is that the camera will not receive two flashes that went out at the same time. it's clear?

  57. Miracles

    There is no moving or stationary train, there are only trains in motion relative to each other.

    "Imagine that there are flashes of light from the moving train, from both ends at the same time (the time of the train). The camera won't pick up the flashes at the same time, will it?"

    The viewer who is at rest relative to that train, will receive the flashes at the same time. The second observer also, but for him the flashes went out at different times according to the clocks of the second train, with which only his clock is synchronized.

    Well, then what will the photos look like? Not reverse pictures?

  58. Israel
    As you slow down, you get closer to Newtonian physics. At high speed simultaneity is effective. Imagine that there are flashes of light from the moving train, from both ends at the same time (train time). The camera won't pick up the flashes at the same time, will it?

  59. Miracles

    So what?

    Let's speed up the trains, so that the gamma factor is such that the trains are shortened by only one part in a million.

    Each train is a kilometer long, and on it years are a millimeter apart. A total of a million years.

    Now you don't have to drive so fast, and it's easier to take pictures. If there is a problem, we will reduce the factor to one in a billion.

    So what will the photos show? Each shot at this slow speed will show an opposite image from the other?

  60. Israel
    For each camera, the four photons arrived at the same time. But the question is when, ie from what point, they left. In Newtonian physics all four also come out at the same time, but not so in relativistic physics.

  61. Shmulik

    The old horse does not finish the horse.. In the meantime we will continue to hear instructive lectures straight from the horse's mouth.


    Shmulik's paper explains how Hawking arrived at his idea of ​​evaporating black holes: What happens to a particle whose entangled sibling has fallen into a black hole?


    Why not the same photons? Because they are a bit bluish in terms of the different viewers?

  62. Israel
    There is no paradox here, but there is a technical problem. I assume that by the term "high resolution" you meant "very "short" exposure, right? Well - think about 4 certain photons, at both ends of the two trains. They inevitably arrived at the same time for the cameras. But pay attention - for any camera but not the same 4 photons!!!

  63. Israel
    A few dozen comments ago, Albenzo explained that the problem with Hawking radiation is that you have to wait billions of years until the black hole is able to release all the information stored in it, and this on the condition that no other star is swallowed by then.

  64. Shmulik

    Let's hope that the black hole will be a little more generous in releasing information. Meanwhile there is no hope on the (events) horizon. Susskind claims that everything got stuck there. Maybe tunneling through the wormholes of the entangled particles will solve the problem.

  65. Speaking of skipping:

    Of course, we should not forget the book "The Biblical Code" by Michael Droznin, which came out about 20 years ago, and in which there are convincing proofs of the hidden knowledge and the discovery of the north of the future using the letter-skipping method, with which the Torah predicted the future until the end of all generations!

    Indeed, at the end of the book there are some amazing predictions for the future. for example:

    Bibi will be murdered before the year 2000.

    Atomic war in Israel in 2006.

    Global Gog and Magog war before 2010.

    Well, not all mothballs are harmful. On the other hand - Lebanon B really was in 2006.

  66. rival

    I asked the rabbi, he answered me: Listen, Israel - You are the Lord our God, one God!

    So who to believe, the boss, the rabbi, or me?


  67. Israel,

    Ask those who work for Big Boss, I'm sure their boss has an answer for that.

    And more than that, I'm sure the answer already exists and is encoded in the Torah, just tell them what it is and see how easily they find it for you by skipping letters 😀

  68. Israel what's going on?
    Something about weaving and trains will wait for another time 🙂
    Something interesting about interweaving. Melsina (?) and Susskind hypothesize that a wormhole exists between two entangled particles. The following article mainly talks about the interweaving of black holes and speculates from this the mechanism that enables interweaving.

    have fun!

  69. So what happens at the end, is there or is there no boss?

    In the meantime, trivia from Meta: the railway paradox.

    It is said that two identical long trains pass each other at high speed so that the gamma factor is equal to 2.

    From the point of view of observer A, who is at rest relative to train A, train B is shortening. From the point of view of observer B, who is at rest relative to train B, train A is shortening.

    It is said that the two observers (who are at a vertical distance of several kilometers from the trains) pass each other and at the moment of the switch, each observer photographs the trains with a high-resolution camera.

    The image of viewer A will show that for every 10 cars of train A there are 20 cars of train B. B's picture will show the opposite situation: for every 10 cars of B's ​​train, 20 of A's.

    But how is this possible? They both photographed the same situation at the same moment, the moment the suit passed each other.

    So how does it work out?

  70. Haim, are you so naive too that you didn't realize that an opponent was speaking sarcastically? Funny that after all his posts here you didn't realize he wasn't one to fall into the trash so quickly.

    Read his last message.

  71. Miracles
    Raphael and Co. will move the nonsense to Sunday and then say twice on Sunday that it's good.

  72. rival
    You claim that you started wearing a kippah. At least take a large dome so that you can put a soup of lokash inside it. Even so, Raphael defeated you in his thoughts and you in your innocence because Raba buys with closed eyes everything that is sold to you for free. At the rate you're going, you'll become his slave.

  73. Miracles
    Amnon Yitzhak and Raphael, both sell defective goods, goods that do not have a standard. Only one Amnon Yitzhak is a little more sophisticated. He knows the mind of his clientele. The big problem of the converts is that if they think they have caught God by the balls, then all the truth is in their hands. I will add a translation of two sayings from Yiddish. If they want to cry, you have to put tears in their eyes and that they don't have enough lime in their veins to whitewash an apartment

  74. Life
    Amnon Yitzhak is the seller, and Raphael is the buyer. Raphael is a very bad seller. He should convince us, and not tell us that we don't understand science.

    It is interesting to investigate how lies are sold to people, because the arguments heard here by the converts. They are liars.

  75. K.
    I will add to your words. Each answer is a basis for another question. What we know about the world rests on our senses. Using appropriate equipment - spectroscopy, we can see in infrared and ultraviolet, with the help of which we learn new things about the world. There is even a theoretical possibility that in the future new research instruments will be developed that will reveal new things to us that we cannot be aware of. There is no end to this. It is hard to believe that Aristotle knew what he was about infrared radiation.
    As for Raphael, he acts like a salesman trying to sell his goods. He had a good teacher, Amnon Yitzchak.. The unusual success of the first Christians was that they knew a chapter in sales and marketing laws.

  76. Raphael,
    You wrote: "The fact that there are questions to ask and explanations to explain should not prevent us from pursuing the search for truth"

    Well, it's a bit difficult when you ignore the (simple and direct) questions I asked you. Your basic premise is problematic and currently has no justification and certainly has no priority over other alternatives, on the contrary, it is inferior because it introduces a much more problematic factor into the story which itself requires explanations. You don't have to answer, but that's not how a cultural discussion is conducted, and that's certainly not what "pursuit of the truth" looks like.

    I did not find a contradiction in my words, I may not have been clear enough. We don't know what the reason for the fundamental regularity in the universe is, but a useful working assumption is that there is such a reason (even if we don't know what it is yet). It is useful, because within the framework of this work assumption it is possible to look for models that describe such a reason.

    No one rules out the theoretical possibility of the existence of a creator of the world just like no one rules out the possibility that the universe was spontaneously created five seconds before you started reading this message, when it was already in an "old" state, or that your entire world is actually a computer program that ran somewhere in a final project of What an alien student. They are all possible, they all raise a lot of other questions that require explanations that we probably won't be able to get because in all of these the reasons are beyond our reach. In short, these are boring options, because we have no way of determining which of them is correct, and therefore we will not be able to improve our situation by randomly and arbitrarily adopting a certain explanation from among the many possible ones, and worse, we may get stuck with a wrong explanation that will block us from discovering that we are wrong. For example, if your basic assumption about legality binding on a legislator is wrong, you are a prisoner of a distorted world view that your whole life revolves around and that is very difficult to free yourself from, because it was organized and perfected over many generations precisely so that those who believe in it will not strive to research the truth. See how hard it is for you to answer simple questions about why you believe the law "legality binds a legislator" is true. If you have a justification for this, you are welcome to present it (this is how a discussion seeking the truth is conducted) and if you don't, then you are welcome to explain why you still choose to hold this position in an arbitrary and unjustified manner.

  77. .

    Would you be willing to direct me to the location of the bad troll factory you came out of. I want to send them instructions on how to improve their product.

  78. Rival/walking det or whatever you're called today
    Well done!!!
    It's nice that you realized that you lived a life of misery and repented!
    It still doesn't mean you won't burn in hell like the rest of the miracles and scumbags for all your sins... but still kudos to you for taking the right step and growing some sense.

  79. rival
    It's amazing how weak the religious faith of the religious commenters here is. Otherwise, they would not pretend to find "proofs" of the existence of this God. A true religious person would not enter into this debate at all.

    It's not for nothing that Raphael doesn't answer me and calls me a liar. He laughs at science not having all the answers, but it doesn't even have one answer to give me.

    So I ask you, seriously, why call them "converts"??

  80. Well done Raphael.
    You provide them with answers and they go into hyperventilation... you don't have to! 🙂
    One of them even admits that he has repented.
    It's just a shame you don't mention the biggest mistake they make: the personification of God.

  81. Raphael
    On Saturday - think about an answer to the following questions
    – Can you tell me one law of nature that is basic and not a consequence of other laws?
    - Is "every law binding a legislator" a law of nature?

  82. "In any case, since none of you has ruled out the possibility of a creator ever existing, let's judge it for now"


    Not only do I not rule out the possibility of the existence of a creator for the world, I even started wearing a kippah following the discussion here with you!

    Happy holiday! 🙂

  83. "The reason that it is preferable to the assumption of the reason that it is preferable to the assumption of necessity in an intelligent legislator is that in the latter case many more questions are opened that we must ask and explanations that we must explain about that intelligent entity, and the research experience shows that if there are several possible explanations it is better to choose the simpler option, necessity in an intelligent legislator is that in the event The latter opens up many more questions that we must ask and explanations that we must explain about that intelligent entity, and the research experience shows that if there are several possible explanations it is better to choose the simpler option"
    The fact that there are questions to ask and explanations to explain should not prevent us from pursuing the search for truth
    You also said later that the scientists do believe that there is a reason for legality. This contradicts what you said before.
    In any case, since none of you disapproved of the existence of a creator for the world, let's judge it for now. Only what is expected of you now is not to despise and mock those who think there is a creator for the world.
    Regarding mercy and cruelty, there is a lot to be said on the subject, but since this is a scientific site and there are many surfers who have no idea about the principles of religion and even deny it, there is no place to discuss it here.
    Shabbat Shalom and Happy Torah Giving to all the House of Israel.

  84. Raphael
    I wasn't rude to you, so please don't lie. You just don't know how to answer any of my questions.

    If I were to say "I don't want to tell you why the laws do not require a legislator" - what would you say?

    Raphael - your religious faith seems very shaky to me. The only thing you have is "if there are laws then there is a legislator". But, instead of proving your argument to us, you demand that we disprove it. When it is explained to you that your attitude is wrong, you begin to slander and insult.

    Do you really think you will convince anyone with your approach? If that's how they convinced you at the time, too bad.

  85. Raphael,
    So the first problem I identify is in your assumption that a law binds a legislator. How do you define law or legality?
    If your definition includes a legislator, then this is a circular statement - for example, if you define a law as something that a legislator necessarily determined, then it is clear, from this definition, that a law requires the existence of a legislator. Of course, you have the right to define a law that way, but that does not mean that this definition corresponds to reality. If your definition of law(s) does not include a legislator then it is not clear what your deduction is based on. The fact that it is difficult for you to imagine legality without a legislator does not strengthen your (possible) definition in any way, nor does it detract in the least from other imaginable definitions. For example, a legality that has always existed, that there was never a moment when it was created and that there is no reason in it except for the legality itself, that is, the way in which the elementary particles in the universe move. This legality has no thoughts, it does not create things, it has no awareness, it certainly does not talk to people, does not perform miracles and does not observe the world.
    Note that it is not said that this alternative assumption is necessarily the correct one, it is still merely an unfounded assumption. The reason it is preferable to the assumption of necessity in an intelligent legislator is that in the latter case many more questions open up that we must ask and explanations that we must explain about that intelligent being, and the research experience shows that if there are several possible explanations it is better to choose the simpler option, at least until new information is received that distinguishes between the possibilities and justifies the Rejecting the simple option over the more complicated option (which happens, for example, from time to time in science).
    Therefore, if there is no better justification for the assumption: law(s) oblige a legislator, there is no good reason to accept it, especially when there are simple alternatives to it. Do you know such justification? ("It makes sense to me" is not a good justification, "I am convinced of this" is not a good justification, "all the laws for humans were enacted by a legislator" is not a good justification, in fact it is a logical fallacy just as there is in the retarded argument about the replicating organic robot … and please don't make me explain it again).

    Regarding the scientific position, we will repeat that we do not have absolute knowledge of why the basic law that we recognize in nature is as it is (we do understand quite well what is derived from this law). It is possible that this legality has existed since time immemorial, it is possible that this legality changes randomly from time to time and only in the place and while this legality exists can the conditions that enable cosmological development (formation of stars and galaxies for example) which in turn enables the creation of organic beings complex enough to wonder about the origins of that legality). It is possible that this legality was driven by the fevered mind of an infinite devil who created for us a world full of suffering and in which the unfortunates are enslaved to a false god, when all of us, believers and everyone else, play our part in a reality show to satisfy the sadistic desires of that devil (this, by the way, sounds much more convincing to me than a merciful God, for example Because of Treacher-Collins syndrome or aneurysms...). So all science can say is that there seems to be legality (this is a fact) and that we have no idea where this legality comes from and there are researchers who try to find models that can explain why the legality is this way and not another, meaning scientists do believe that this legality has a reason, even though as mentioned it can be That she doesn't have a reason, she's just always been here. It is possible that in the future there will be a sufficiently convincing model that will give an explanation and maybe even predictions that can be tested and maybe even an overwhelming argument that things had to be in a certain way and not in any other way. In the meantime, this is a fundamentally open question, and this is the usual situation in science.
    By the way, there is finally a breakthrough in an extremely important subject and now we know how the immune system begins to form during embryonic development - a subject that has been an open question for a long time. There is nothing like science!

  86. Strong
    Everything you described happens within the laws of nature and can be observed. Therefore it is no longer a matter of logic but of fact. We are not now in infinite density and therefore there is time and there is causality.

  87. rival
    You and no one else have any understanding and knowledge of the Creator. And if you want to think that this is your "proof" that a law does not need a legislator, then you can go to sleep in a calm and kind-hearted silence. Good night and a good night's sleep.

  88. Not Raphael, human nature accepts as a fact that everything has a reason. It seems intuitive to us. The universe, on the other hand, is not intuitive. It is not "logical" to think that fast travel will slow down relative time, it is not "logical" that fast travel will increase our mass, it is not "logical" that a particle is also a wave, it is not "logical" that a photon is created out of nothing and it is not "logical" that it will disappear in Planck time as if There was no.
    Causality is not a property of the universe, especially not at a microscopic level.
    If the Big Bang contained conditions of infinite density (which is what observations suggest), time has no meaning and causality can hardly exist without time.

  89. "If you would like to explain why you said that a law does not bind a legislator, then everyone will be happy to hear your explanation. at least me"

    Here I just proved it, God works according to legality even though it has no lawgiver.


  90. Raphael,

    You are not ready to answer and explain, so why do you demand it from me?

    It doesn't matter at all if you are ready or not ready to comment on what I wrote - I have clearly proven that God operates according to some legality, and that completely drops the ground under your arguments.

  91. Strong
    The simple logic that everything has a reason and it is the nature of science to trace everything that happens and why it happens.

    Even if you repeat the same question a thousand times that concerns the bones of the Creator, I will not answer you. But if you would like to explain why you said that a law does not require a legislator then everyone would be happy to hear your explanation. At least I am.

  92. Raphael,

    "If you constantly avoid dealing with the issue..."

    Sorry, but I think the one avoiding confrontation here is you.

    Proof that God acts according to legality - if he did not act according to any legality, his decisions would be random, and every believer will agree with me that his decisions are not random.

    So now please explain to us, what is the source of the legality according to which God acts?

  93. By the way you don't know if they require an origin but an opponent knows for sure that they don't require an origin and only he knows why.

  94. "The laws of nature are not laws in this sense. As far as we know they are constants or truths of the visible universe. We have no way of knowing what their origin is or if they require an origin."
    Everything is true except for the last part. I think we have tools to know if they require a source or not. And in my opinion if we constantly avoid dealing with this issue head on for understandable reasons. That's the whole story.

  95. Raphael
    Your comments are starting to lose their honesty.
    I am not trying to obfuscate but to discuss with you and again you refuse to address the claims and accuse me of blurring the discussion.
    Even when the responses here degenerate into straw arguments and a lack of understanding of the essence of the conversation, I try not to blame or attack the claimant.
    Why don't you try to respond to language claims honestly? If you are convinced that your arguments are correct, you should have no problem with this.
    Regarding the law and the legislator, you repeat and repeat the personification of terms in order to serve your argument.
    I will try to explain: does a birthday cake require a birthday? Already by formulating the question, you aim for a desired answer.
    You ask if a law binds a legislator knowing that the meaning of the word law refers to the convention of human beings.
    The laws of nature are not laws in this sense. As far as we know they are constants or truths of the visible universe.
    We have no way of knowing what their source is or if they require a source.
    You claim that there must be a source and that the source is a creator.
    Since you claim certain knowledge, you have a duty of proof.
    In the same way, I can ask you whether a legislator is bound by a law, whether a legislator is subject to his laws, and what legality enables the existence of a legislator.
    My answer to all these questions is that I don't know.
    If you thought I knew, I would probably try to provide an argument that would give validity to my statement.

  96. Yariv, we are not in Shipra's backyard. If the answer is not absolute, then you have to reason how legality can be possible without a legislator.

  97. And I'll refine what I said before -

    God **must** act according to a certain legality, otherwise his decisions would be random.

  98. Raphael,

    Eitan is not trying to create any obfuscation or confusion, he is simply trying desperately to make you use your mind.

    "What is the source of the laws of nature and does their existence obligate a wise legislator or not?"

    The answer is absolutely not.

  99. Strong,
    You say a lot of things in order to create a blurring of confusion and a lack of focus on the main question that is now on the agenda: what is the source of the laws of nature and whether their existence obligates a wise legislator or not.

  100. Raphael
    I don't know what the source of natural laws is, I don't know if they need a source.
    I don't know if in a parallel universe there aren't different laws of nature like Pi whose value is 3, I don't know if there are parallel universes.
    I don't know if the laws of nature are algorithms in the operating system that simulates a universe, I don't know if the universe is a simulation.
    I don't know if the universe was created by a child as a school project.
    I don't know if the universe is a dream
    I don't know if the universe is an equation
    I don't know if the universe was created by a creator who created man at its center.

    There are many more possibilities that I don't know or can't imagine.
    The difference between us is that my lack of knowledge does not lead me to understand that one of these approaches has priority over the others.

  101. "Second paragraph - I didn't say"

    You didn't say but what to do, there is no other option, God must decide if a certain thing is moral or not, right or wrong, according to some legality.

    (even if we don't understand it)

  102. Okay Rafael flows with you. You convinced me God exists.

    The source of all the laws of nature in the universe is exactly the same source from which the laws by which God acts and makes his decisions derive, the reason for their existence is the same reason why God also exists.

    One second I'm going to put on a cap.

  103. Strong
    Leave my faith aside. The question of the origin of the laws of nature and whether they are there for no reason is a scientific question and not a religious question.

  104. rival
    Please tell me what your process of drawing conclusions is about the existence of the laws of nature and their origin.

  105. Raphael, when you say that you are not bothered by what your opponent thinks about the contradiction in your words, you are actually saying that you have no way or desire to reconcile the contradiction. It actually strengthens an opponent's position that your arguments have no validity.
    There is nothing wrong with saying, "There is a contradiction, I cannot resolve it, my belief does not derive from logic but from a positive feeling I get from holding the belief", this response cannot exist in a scientific discussion, but at least it is honest.
    Regarding your previous response, you are moving from one straw argument to another.
    Now you are using a "known to everyone" argument
    If it was "known to all" there would be no point in the discussion.
    The discussion is not about the "powers of the Creator" but about proofs of his existence and more importantly, about the logical fallacy of his existence
    (What is the reason for its existence? If there is a reason, who created the reason? If an organized and orderly creator does not need a reason, why does an organized and orderly universe need a reason?).

  106. Opponent, if you think that if I say that the Creator is infinite then I am contradicting what I said that I know nothing about. So think like this. it does not bother me.

  107. Raphael, it's not that the parable doesn't suit me.

    It doesn't fit in any way shape or form with the things we've been talking about here, and the very fact that you're using it shows how dysfunctional your reasoning process is.

  108. Rival If the parable doesn't suit you then don't use it.
    Regarding the second question, I don't even say yes or no.

  109. "I don't know how to say anything about the bones of the Creator and not only me but no one.... is infinite"

    Raphael, here you contradict yourself again! (Second time already!)

    First you said that nothing can be known about the Creator, then in the same breath you stated that He is infinite!

    Who told you he is infinite? How did you check it? With what tools?

  110. Strong
    So for the record I don't know how to say anything about the bones of the creator and not just me but no one. And not only do we not know, but there is no possibility of knowing because we are limited and he is infinite. But it is possible to understand with simple common sense that there is no law without a legislator and whoever claims otherwise then please explain.

  111. Raphael, I know it's just a parable, the problem is that it doesn't fit here and nothing can be deduced from it about the things we're talking about here.

    "Another thing, don't put in words like I didn't say anything about the creator himself"

    So just give a short yes/no answer, without even going into detail - does God act according to certain legalities?

  112. And one more thing, Raphael, you are right in saying that the fact that science does not know how to explain any aspect of the theory, does not necessarily disprove the theory (neurologists do not have a full explanation for Ritalin's mechanism of action, and yet, there is a partial theory regarding Ritalin's effect on people suffering from ADHD).
    On the other hand, I don't remember that in any of your responses you wrote "I don't know"

  113. rival
    I gave a parable. I do not determine what reality is according to the parable, but use the parable to illustrate the point. But in the end a parable is just a parable.
    Another thing, don't put in words like I didn't say anything about the creator himself and I have no intention of talking about the bones of the creator at all.

  114. Your inference process looks like this:

    The book Mein Kampf that Hitler wrote consists of letters, and is a bad book - therefore the Torah, which is also made up of letters, must be a bad book.

    This is how your "logic" works.

  115. Raphael, no one claims that the inability to explain a phenomenon constitutes an internal or external contradiction. (How do you think this constitutes a contradiction?)
    The fact that constants in the universe can be quantified and phenomena in the universe can be deduced based on them and their interactions, does not contradict the fact that currently, it is not known if there is a reason for the constants or even if causality is possible in a singularity where physics as we understand it, loses validity or time to exist in it.
    All we know about the Big Bang, from observations, is that at some point in the past, the energy density and space-time were infinite. In such a situation, all the laws of physics known to us and all the behavior of space and time, lose their validity.
    We have no way of knowing how the universe behaved then, how long it behaved this way and if at all the concept of "before" is valid in such an environment, where the curvature of space is infinite.
    All we know is that the universe has changed from this state to a state where the energy density is not infinite and decreasing. At this point, physical constants were created (or manifested) that allowed the universe to behave in a predictable way (and some of which we know) from then until today.
    The contradiction an opponent finds in your arguments is that you believe that our ignorance of the conditions and causality (if any) indicates a creator who chose those conditions. The contradiction is that either the creator (being fixed and complex) requires a reason for its existence and then the creator requires a creator of its own. Or the creator does not require a cause and then, in fact, the need for a creator is eliminated because the argument against a creator is that the universe does not need a cause because a cause indicates a time that did not exist before the big bang (because there was no "before").
    And again, you are welcome to explain why you think the universe indicates a planner.

  116. "How do the bits know when to turn on and when to turn off"

    Raphael, you give an example here of something (bits) that someone intelligent directed (with the help of electrical circuits) to react in a certain way, and from this jumps to the conclusion that every single thing in the world that reacts was also designed by an intelligent being.

    Your process of drawing conclusions is wrong, but completely.

  117. "When science explains the entire development of the universe from x time after the Big Bang, no one claims that if it cannot explain the causes of the Big Bang itself, then there is an internal contradiction here and the whole explanation falls apart"

    No, the comparison is incorrect:

    At the moment science does not know what caused the big bang, this is not a contradiction it is simply ignorance. On the other hand, when you insist that it is not possible for a certain thing to act according to legality without anyone establishing it, and in the same breath you claim that another thing (God) acts according to legality without anyone having established it, here you are already contradicting yourself. This is not ignorance, this is a huge contradiction.

  118. For all those who ask how the particles know the laws established by the Creator. It seems to me that there is a place to apply the laws of nature to computer programming. In this case, no one will ask how the bits know when to turn on and when to turn off, and on the other hand, no one would imagine that the software was created without a programmer who wrote it for a very specific purpose.

  119. Strong
    When science explains the entire development of the universe from x time after the big bang, no one claims that if it cannot explain the causes of the big bang itself, then there is an internal contradiction here and the whole explanation falls apart.

  120. Good morning everyone
    Rafael, you have the right not to answer the questions and your right not to specify what your reasons are for your reluctance in the discussion.
    On the other hand, you must understand that it is impossible to conduct a discussion in which one side is not ready to present arguments and is not even ready to explain why he is not ready to present arguments.
    If this was a tennis tournament, the words technical victory would be thrown into the air. And if this was a high school skirmish competition, the jury would declare that the Rafael team lost the skirmish.
    Second, the fact that you declare "there is no internal and external contradiction" does not magically eliminate the contradiction. You must provide an explanation as to why you believe there is no discrepancy. (or state that you are not ready to discuss the issue).
    I'm sure you've noticed that people are having a real and mature discussion with you and trying to give a basis for every claim that is made. You, on the other hand, are content with making statements without any explanation as to why your statement is true, insulting and attacking the claimant instead of the argument or simply ignoring it.
    Again, your right not to comment and your right not to provide explanations of what is behind your arguments but you probably realize that this does not make your arguments sound very credible.

  121. Rival There is no contradiction, neither internal nor external. Nothing will help - I will not talk about these issues here and you are free to think what you want. All in all, there is a free choice.

  122. "And who enacted the laws according to which God thinks and acts? After all, if he didn't act according to some kind of legality, he would be something random, wouldn't he? Who enacted the laws of justice and morality that he follows?"

    "I'm deliberately not answering you because I don't want to discuss it in this forum..."

    It's a shame, because it's a very fundamental issue without which it's difficult to move forward in the discussion. If, according to you, someone had to determine the laws of nature, then someone also had to determine the laws according to which God acts and decides what is right and what is wrong.

    You are stuck in an internal contradiction and don't even realize it.

  123. rival
    The Creator of the world created all of reality. Everything.
    Regarding your second question, I deliberately do not answer you because I do not want to discuss it in this forum. The same goes for Nissim's questions about brain aneurysms. And my reasons are kept with me.

  124. And another question I asked you before -

    And who enacted the laws according to which God thinks and acts?

    (After all, if he didn't act according to some kind of legality, he would be something random, wouldn't he? Who enacted the laws of justice and morality that he acts according to?)

  125. Raphael,

    Do you claim that without God there would be no matter in the universe?

    Is he the one who created the material?

  126. Rival I got the impression that you are a little clever.
    Think for yourself if the universe can exist without the laws of nature.

  127. Raphael, as you were already hinted/asked here before:

    What do you think would happen if God did not legislate the laws of nature?

    How would the particles behave in such a case?

    What would happen when two particles collided with each other, what was the result?

    (I'm trying to understand what the difference is between with/without the laws that God supposedly enacted)

  128. Raphael
    You wrote "Does science assume that a law does not need a legislator and has it proven it?" The answer is no... as they say over and over and over and over again - in science there are no proofs.

    But allow me to ask again - has religion proven that a law is binding on the legislator?

  129. K.
    Overall yes.
    Does science assume that law does not need a legislator and has it been proven?
    I added the article "Poni Huq" I guess I meant lawbreakers. So yes there are law breakers but only the creatures who have free choice can choose not to obey the law.
    Hope we continue in a clean and business style.

  130. Raphael

    This is not a weird quiz. We already realized that you are not able to learn when other people just give you the answer, so I said to myself, well, we will try to help you figure it out for yourself. I thought that if the answers came from you you would be able to understand things better. I was probably wrong and your intellectual laziness is stronger than your desire to understand things and get answers to your questions. Apparently you do not want to know, and that the only answer that interests you is - there is a God.

    It is not so clear to me why it is so important for you to receive this answer, since the connection between the God described by you in your answer here, and the God described in the Jewish tradition is, apart from the use of the same word to describe him, non-existent.

    If you still change your mind, you are welcome to come back and answer these questions for you and I am ready to help you with more questions that will lead you along the way.
    Here's a teaser for you though, just to give you something interesting to think about. He's a little further down the road, but so be it.

    What would nature look like without the regularities (or how we don't say regularities in the plural) that we find in it?

  131. Bio

    Since you chose the whale sonar, then let's go with it. Let's assume that 42 new components are needed for its development. Let's assume that means 714865 mutations are needed for this. Suppose the whale population had a relatively constant size of 18 whales. Let's assume that the rate of mutations in whales is 9854 mutations (that every new whale has on average this number of mutations). Suppose a generation of whales lasts 47 weeks. Let's say whales had 1475 years to develop sonar. Suppose all these data were fixed and unchanged forever. Let's say whales only breed when Taylor Swift music is playing in the background. Suppose whales can spontaneously develop sonar without any need for evolution if Taylor Swift wins a Grammy.

    We accepted that the leviathans could indeed develop the sonar system.

    but what? All this data is clicked from the finger. So it doesn't mean anything. Just like the data you show.

  132. Bio
    I'll explain again, try to concentrate…. The distribution of the possible sequences of proteins is not uniform. Do you understand this sentence?

  133. bio,
    Did these 3 components have any (different) functionality in the organism before the integrated system was created? Was this functionality common in the population? Did combinations of two of the three components also have any functionality (even if different)?
    Were there environmental conditions that gave priority to the interaction between these components (at the level of genetic expression, at the level of concentrations in the same area/tissue, in terms of their affinity for each other, etc.?
    Do you know what is the minimum possible to get such functionality, so that we get some result even if with almost zero efficiency?

    All of these and a few more that I did not mention are critical for clear knowledge so that it is possible to draw something absolute about the programming of the development of any system. do you understand that

    Still waiting for an answer from you about the replicating organic robot. Have you already gone to consult with someone who understands something in science and logic so that he can explain to you the explanation I gave you regarding the essential flaw that exists in it? This is important so that you stop making fun of yourself (I saw that you made fun of yourself not only here but also on religious websites).

  134. For the math enthusiasts among you, we will see you match the numbers I wrote about to geological time. Alternatively, we will see you refuting them. Even if we assume that only 3 components are required for the development of a biological system (such as the whale sonar), this still means approximately 30^10 mutations. When it comes to a whale population, even a trillion years of mutations will not be enough to develop the same system. And again, this has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is not random, or that the Kha charges are synonymous, or other excuses.

  135. walking jay

    Hell is not a logical place. Also supposedly only your soul goes there and then how is it supposed to feel pain. And we are also creatures that adapt to things, so before long this interruption of the eternal fire will be normal and not an answer at all. The question also arises as to what hell are you talking about because there are so many versions.

  136. Raphael,
    Would it be correct to summarize your arguments here as follows:
    Assumption 1: A law is binding on a legislator (note that as long as you do not prove that it must be so, and you have not presented such proof so far, this is an assumption).
    Fact 1: There are laws of nature in the world, for example laws of physics, which seem to describe well the behavior of the elementary particles that, as far as we know, make up the world.
    Conclusion: The creator of the world is the one who legislates the laws of nature (by the way, if a law binds a legislator, because that's what we know, then a law also binds law-makers?)

    Do you think this is a reasonable description of the logical gist of your argument?

  137. Raphael

    are you in a hurry somewhere? These are not rhetorical questions, you are allowed to expand, maybe it will save some questions.
    But ok here are two questions together instead of one.

    Is there a difference in how they are worded?

    Is one of the formulations more correct than the other?

  138. Absolutely... I don't sleep at night for fear!!! The truth is that conversations here with religious people only strengthen my faith. They only show that their faith is on chicken's knees, and invent debatable arguments. Once you show how wrong they are, they shut up.

  139. The truth is that walking joke is right, the stories about torture in hell always scared me to death, besides who has the strength to get up early in the morning to put on tefillin, to pray...

    So I prefer to be an atheist, that way I have a much easier life and I don't have to observe mitzvot, so he is right after all.

    (miracles, I'm sure you're like that too, don't lie)

  140. No seriously, how does that work? It's really interesting. If an impudent particle does not respond according to the laws that God has set for it, then does God punish it? If a particle turned, for example, to the right instead of the left, then it is considered an unruly particle and then it has to make a correction?

    By the way, do they place tefillin?

  141. Raphael
    You will not get an answer from them because they will have to admit that you are right.
    That's why they go round and round.

    The reason you choose not to believe in God is because you know that if God really exists then you deserve to burn forever in boiling excrement in the fires of hell. 🙂
    That's why you choose to close your eyes and shout: I'm not here!

  142. Raphael
    Do you understand that saying "the Creator of the world set the laws" does not explain how the electrons act according to the laws?

    You want to call ignorance God, that's your right, and I don't see anything wrong with that. But - how is this related to Judaism?

  143. One commenter
    No. They open a book to see what Einstein wrote and act accordingly.

  144. Wd
    Each one is described according to his level. I have a feeling that we are not making progress...

  145. So wait, God enacted laws (like in the Knesset) and wrote them in some book, and every time two particles collide with each other they open the book of laws to the appropriate page and check how they should react?

    Rafael, is that how it works?

  146. Raphael
    I have a bill in my hand. Is the bill 20 shekels or 50 shekels? I'll give you a hint - the bill is not NIS 20.

  147. Raphael
    Which of the laws did he create, and which derive from other laws?
    I understand you're afraid to answer me about the baby del aneurysm, right?

  148. Raphael,

    And who enacted the laws according to which God acts and thinks?

    (If he didn't act according to some legality he would be random)

  149. Yariv I have already told you how many times the creator of the world enacts the laws of nature. It doesn't suit you, so offer another explanation.

  150. was Created,
    Albenzo is not "over the top" as you say, but is commenting on a topic that, judging by his responses to date, he is without a doubt extremely professional in it. It is implied from your words that the principles of statistics are different in physics and biology, and this statement is completely wrong, not to say stupid. The comparison you make between Albenzo and between ignoramuses and peoples of lands in matters of science is outrageous.
    The fact is that the trolls here have presented (again) an argument that is completely wrong and for that they have received excellent responses, especially from Albenzo, that point out the error. The trolls chose to ignore the answers (as befits trolls) and they continue to pollute the site, because that's all a troll can "contribute" to this site.
    The fact that you managed not to see all of this makes me wonder about your relevant knowledge of science and your abilities to exercise logical thinking. If you did not understand Albenzo's explanations, it is better to ask and not make the unwise comments you made about him.

  151. Sorry but you didn't explain anything (or I missed the answer)

    Is your answer "God made matter work this way"?

  152. Yariv, unfortunately the conversation with you and with Nissim enters an endless loop. There is a limit to how many things can be repeated.

  153. Raphael

    Don't want to add to your stress with all the questions, but the question is - are the toddler and Newton dealing with the same thing, i.e. are they thinking about/describing the same thing? - am waiting.

  154. I actually want to understand from him why the material's behavior cannot be derived from its internal structure?

    Rafael, what more reasonable or better alternative do you have?

  155. Nisim, trust me, I have some experience with these things, the answer will be something like this:

    "God's ways are hidden, you don't see the whole picture... the baby was "punished" for sins he committed in previous incarnations, and this is part of his "correction"... "

  156. Raphael
    So try to answer. You require me to conclude from the fact that I do not know why there are laws of nature that there is a God. I ask you - why sometimes there are aneurysms in the brains of babies. Again - go to my link to understand what I'm talking about. I think my question is more important than yours, and I really want to understand.

  157. Raphael
    why are you afraid of me Every time you get into trouble, you move a topic.

    I asked you a simple question - you are not able to answer that either?

  158. was Created,

    I repeat what I already wrote in the previous response: I did not write anything positive about biology. All I did was take a completely mathematical argument offered by Raphael and his partner (who keeps changing names, so I don't follow anymore, I think today is "Bio") and point out a mathematical error in it. that's it. I didn't try to turn biology into math, and I didn't assume that my math and physics skills would transfer seamlessly to biology.

    The probabilistic argument against the development of organic molecules is wrong on a mathematical level. I can't understand why it bothers you so much that I'm writing this (maybe "bothering" isn't the right word.. but I think you get my point).

  159. albenza,
    That's right, you and Rafael and anyone else are allowed to cover anything. But only those who know what he is talking about can appreciate his words. You obviously know what you're talking about when you talk about concepts in your field of expertise. But it is not always right to ask them for another field of expertise.

    The world of biology is very different from the world of mathematical physics. For example, the day when it will be possible to describe a biological situation using a vector in the Hilbert space, and then come out with clear statements about possible scenarios, is far away. It seems to me that biology is light years away from the place of physics when it comes to analytical analysis tools. Moreover, it is probable that the biological reality consists of every physical reality.

    I don't think there is any point in talking about biology or evolution in terms of probability density. At least not at this stage of the discipline's development (unless these are ultra-general and non-binding statements). So what if Raphael (or one of his characters) uses this terminology? What does he already know? As you wrote, he doesn't even really know the concept. So why be dragged after him?

  160. By the way, if instead of insulting all the time and turning to the emotional side, you will try to examine things objectively, I think you will understand for yourself how weak your arguments are compared to the counter-arguments raised here.

  161. According to the barrage of slanders and excuses and philosophy, I see that you are, how to say, a little stressed.

  162. "The two embryos have no way to verify or disprove their theories. In one case he was right. Not thanks to a winning argument"

    What's more, as you said, it's an argument in retrospect, only after he already knows it's true...

    I agree with you completely.

  163. "Scientists shouldn't accept every wild theory that someone throws into the air"


    He wrote: "According to the parable we must accept it as truth and without any evidence or proof"

    That is, he only presented the nonsensical worldview of the believers, according to which everything that is theoretically possible must also be true in reality even if there is no evidence for it.

  164. One commenter
    This chewed-up story about embryos (which started on a Christian preacher's website) might work in conversion conferences and people who know what answer they would like to receive before the question is asked, but not in a scientific discussion.
    Both embryos have no way to verify or disprove their theories. In one case he was right. Not by virtue of a winning argument, examination or any conclusion, no, he won because the Christian preacher who wrote the parable knew how children were born before he wrote the story.
    You are again chewing the straw argument in which you make a false claim, attribute the claim to the other side, refute the lie and declare victory
    Scientists are not supposed to accept "every wild theory that someone throws into the air". In order for a theory to be scientific, it must fit the observations and provide an effective explanation for them.
    "Because God" is not such an explanation.

  165. Here is a version I found for example the fool about the baby and his mother, according to the parable we must accept as truth and without any evidence or proof any wild theory that someone throws into the air just because maybe in the future it will "turn out to be true"... according to the parable we also have to accept that there is a teapot that goes around the sun:

    "A conversation between two babies in a mother's womb:
    The first asks: Do you believe in life after birth?

    Obviously, replies the second, there must be something after birth. We are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.
    Do not believe, says the first, there is no life after birth. What kind of life could there be?

    I don't know, his brother replies, but it's brighter there than here, and maybe we can walk with our feet and eat with our mouths...

    Stupid, answered the first, walking is not possible. And eat with our mouths? What nonsense - the umbilical cord provides us with nutrition and life after birth cannot exist because the umbilical cord is too short.

    I don't know... said the other, I still think there is something, just different from here.

    Pretty much nothing, it's a fact that no one ever came back from there. Birth is the end of life, after which there is only darkness.

    Well, still I believe that at least we can see mother there and she will take care of us.
    mother? Do you believe in mom? So where is she now?

    She is around us, answered the other, she is everywhere. She sustains our lives. Without her this world would not exist.

    There is no logic in what you say, said the first, a fact that we don't see... it doesn't exist.

    To this the other replied: sometimes when you are quiet you can hear her, you can feel that she is there. I tell you, I believe that there is a reality after birth and we are here to prepare ourselves for this reality...

    A little moral to our questions about life after death, and in general about the divine light and eternal life after the coming of Messiah.

    do not forget! God is with us at every moment and everywhere, from time to time it is possible and desirable to look at the sky and thank him even for the smallest thing we have because it is not self-evident.

  166. Good Morning
    The discussion is starting to progress..
    Raphael realized that he would not be able to win a debate about statistics in front of people who understand what statistics are and would not decide a debate about organic chemistry as long as those arguing against him had knowledge in the field.
    In any scientific subject, if you ask "why" 3 or 4 times, you arrive at pure philosophy. In this discussion it took a little longer but finally, the discussion turned into a pure discussion of philosophy and logic and other abstract concepts..
    Raphael, you refer to the law based on your experience with laws. Your experience tells you that every law is written by human beings with an intention.
    Basically you are subjecting the discussion to your own terminology. (A bit like the discussion with the replicating robot. Only there, the dishonesty was more visible)
    Law of nature is a term designed to help people understand. Its more accurate definition is: constant of the universe
    In the same way you can say that the value Pi is a law of nature (although I feel that the fact that Pi is not equal to 3 indicates a poor design of the universe).
    Why are the constants in the universe the way they are? Why are they not different? Why the speed of light is about 300K km per second and not 333K are questions that cannot be answered at the moment and we may never be able to answer them.
    Raphael chooses to believe that lack of answer indicates a planner who has decided.
    There are others who will say that there is no reason and each parallel universe has gained its own constants.
    Others will say that the super software that simulates our universe is responsible for the constants of the universe that are hidden in the lines of code of the software.
    Others will speculate that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and collapse and in each cycle it gains new constants.
    There must be some who would say that the universe is a dream of the Creator.
    All these hypotheses have more or less the same validity, they are all not really scientific and they all only raise more questions.
    They can be discussed for a long time.

  167. “Your explanation is inadequate because it contains no element of sorcery or magic or incantations.
    If you watch a magic show you will find that it makes a bigger impression than your boring explanations.
    Only if you add to the explanation some miracle or god or demon or spirit will it be satisfactory"

    big! I liked it 🙂

    (Unfortunately, this is really their way of thinking, but they are very offended because "their intelligence is underestimated")

  168. rival,
    Your explanation is inadequate because it contains no element of sorcery or magic or incantations.
    If you watch a magic show you will find that it makes a bigger impression than your boring explanations.
    Only if you add to the explanation some miracle or god or demon or spirit will it be satisfactory.

  169. Raphael

    Okay, my mistake, I wasn't clear enough, let's go back a bit. Are the toddler and Newton about the same thing, i.e. are they thinking about/describing the same thing?

  170. Rival "It is due to the structure of the material" is not a sufficient explanation.

  171. "An adversary about the behavior of matter. what is your offer Why does matter behave the way it does?"

    Raphael, I already explained to you before that this is due to the structure of the material, from the arrangement of the atoms and molecules inside.

    Is it God who arranges them in your opinion?

  172. adversary about the behavior of the material. what is your offer Why does matter behave the way it does?

  173. Nissim, whoever wants to learn Torah should go to a rabbi who will teach him. We are only talking about science here.
    Wd there are a lot of differences and I don't know where you are heading so I wanted to shorten the process. But if you insist then a toddler has less intelligence than Newton. Hope I hit the direction you're headed.

  174. rival
    Yes…. I have no problem with a person saying "I believe in God but I don't know how to explain many things".

    My problem is with religious preachers who just lie, and tell us how stupid we are who don't understand.

  175. "Why do babies sometimes have brain aneurysms"

    only aneurysms ???

    Miracles really, don't you know their answer to these things?

    "God's ways are hidden", you don't see the whole picture... the baby was "punished" for sins he committed in previous incarnations and this is part of his "correction"... What doesn't make sense?

  176. Raphael,

    Why do you insist that the behavior of matter should be determined by an intelligent being? Take for example graphite and diamond, the former is a very soft and brittle material, while the latter is one of the hardest materials in nature.

    Both are made up of only carbon atoms, the only difference between them is the different arrangement of the atoms inside.

    Why is it difficult for you to accept such a simple thing? Why do you insist on complicating it?

  177. Raphael
    In your first sentence you say "does the fact that I don't know something result in something else?" " - No. But closing your eyes and saying I don't know is not great wisdom." Rabbi Akiva said about this "he knows that he does not know rank". You have not reached this stage. Your big problem is that your beard looks like a forest without trees.

  178. Raphael

    It's not an exercise in spoon-feeding answers, and it's not that complicated. You are able to do it. You just need to exercise your head a little.

  179. Raphael
    You accuse me of "turning a blind eye". But let's see who really closes their eyes - to issues much more important than "why there are laws of nature".

    Explain here to all of us - why babies sometimes have aneurysms in the brain - what exactly is the purpose of this? You are welcome to enter my link to see what it is about.

  180. Miracles, you make me tired.
    Wd come enlighten my eyes and tell me what the difference is.

  181. Raphael
    Where did I close my eyes? In that I do not conclude that there is a God from the fact that I (that is, science) does not know everything?
    Do you really not see how stupid this argument is?

  182. Raphael

    What is the difference between a toddler and a Newton?

    Regarding the second part of your response, let's leave it aside and leave your reading comprehension failure

  183. "Does the fact that I don't know something result in something else? " - No. But closing your eyes and saying I don't know is not great wisdom.
    Two babies in Iman's belly. One says to the other: You believe in mother. The second: I don't believe in these things. I'm an atheist.

  184. Wd what Newton did was describe the law as he currently sees it. That doesn't mean he described it all. I will continue in tension.
    Besides, I didn't see the link you attached, but it's ridiculous to say that science is not based on the laws of nature. Simply ridiculous.

  185. Raphael
    Unlike others here, I say what seems to me to be the truth.
    I'll ask you again, and if you can't answer in one word, then don't bother.
    Does the fact that I don't know something, does something else follow?

  186. Miracles, once again we encounter the answer "I have no idea" regarding the most basic question on which all science is based.
    Wd it's just that the law was there even before the toddler understood it. So what is your take on this?

  187. Raphael

    I know you hate to do this but let me try to help you come up with the answer on your own.

    When a toddler picks up objects and releases them and comes to the realization that things fall. Is this a natural law?

  188. Raphael
    "Why" in the sense of "for what reason", and not "for what purpose", right?

    I have no idea why there is legality.

    I don't think that the mere fact that I don't know something, then follows from who it is something. I'm wrong?

  189. was Created,

    First of all, I think I can express my opinion on any subject I feel like. Raphael is also allowed, and so is anyone, whoever he is. The trick is to know when you are speaking from deep knowledge and familiarity with the subject you are writing about, and when you are just writing your opinions, impressions and ideas as a layman. At no point did I claim to be a biologist or an expert in biology.

    This is an introduction. Now let's get into the content - please go through my comments. I wrote nothing about biology. I wrote about probability, and a little about the physics of organic molecules (which is really not my field of expertise, but I have a close friend who did my first and second degrees with me who is a physicist who deals extensively in this field, so I am well aware of the research being done in this field). I am a graduate of advanced degrees in mathematics, and by profession I am indeed a physicist (and not a mathematician), but I am a researcher in the field of mathematical physics, and I definitely think that I can conduct a serious and opinionated dialogue about mathematics (in certain fields - of course there is no person in the world who is an expert in all fields of mathematics) also with professional mathematicians.

    And on a matter-of-fact note - contrary to the words of Raphael and his friends (both in previous discussions about physics and in the current discussion) everything I write is reasoned and has a solid foundation. Do you think I'm talking nonsense? Come on, show me. Teach me how to calculate probability without knowing what the density factor is. Explain to me why it is correct to assume that the density is uniform, even though we know for sure that if one organic molecule has a positive charge, for example, and its partner also has a positive charge, then they will repel each other and the arrangement of both side by side in a sequence is practically impossible.

  190. I haven't been on the site for a few hours and dozens of questions are already waiting for me and if I don't answer them all then they will say I'm evasive. So let them say.
    However, I will answer one question.
    Miracles, yes I am asking why there is legality at all and what nature is subject to this legality. do you have an answer?

  191. Raphael

    The problem with you here is not that you believe in a god, creator of the universe or whatever. This point does not matter at all. The problem is that you are being dishonest and intellectually lazy.

    You make claims and make strong assertions about things you don't even come close to understanding at a sufficient level to just have a half-assed conversation on the subject.

    It's as if you're asking for explanations and when you get one then you either simply ignore or ignore them and repeat the same point that you just got an explanation for, or you move on to something else as if this point just a moment ago was supposedly so significant to your "thesis" now (when It was clarified why it is wrong) basically not at all important or relevant to the topic.

    You are unable to admit your smallest mistake. When you are made aware of your mistake, you simply ignore it and move on without acknowledging it, and thus you can make the same mistake again in six months when no one will bother to remember that we already went through it.

    The manner of your response indicates that you either do not read the comments given to you at all, or at best skim over them to find something to write in the response, and in fact do not at all try to understand the things written in the response.

    Any suggestion that you would deepen your knowledge of some matter about which you are making claims or that you would attempt to carry out the thought process in question independently, instead of simply quoting some commenter or source was met with refusal.

    You have some kind of problem (or fear) with the concept of not knowing something - and you feel the need after every time someone doesn't know something to jump straight into the arms of the creator/god. It makes no sense.
    If I asked you where I live, and you found out you didn't know it. Was this also a reason for you to jump to the conclusion that there is a God?

  192. was Created
    The reason is that the biological arguments given here are at the level of an idiot. So - I think Dr. Lapisika will know how to disqualify them....

  193. "Raphael, why do you put your healthy head in a sick bed?"

    On the contrary, science is the healthiest bed there is, a fact that even the biggest believers run to (to the hospitals and clinics) when they don't feel well, then God is no longer good enough for them.

  194. albenza,
    You probably know how to explain why there is an electric force since you know how to explain why the symmetry (1)U must exist.
    But since you are not a biologist, it can be assumed that your understanding of biology/genetics/evolution is not something. So why do you sin like Raphael and his ilk and argue about subjects where your knowledge is minus basic?

  195. Miracles,
    This is not true at all. So it was a replicating robot with DNA that by definition was created by humans. In fact, it's going back now. Perhaps Camilla managed to clarify to him the error in the logic of defining something as planned and then showing that "look! It's planned" but I guess that's not what happened. I have a feeling that the replicating robot will come back in a big way!

  196. Bio
    You gave the stupid car analogy before, under a different nickname. Do you now remember "True Skeptic"?
    To remind you, you were nicknamed "a real liar".

    Want to go back to this nonsense again?

  197. Raphael
    cool it. I didn't attack you. "Planned" and "random" are not opposites. The opposite of "random" is "deterministic".

    We know both types of processes in nature. Do you need examples, or do you realize you've failed.?

  198. Raphael,

    "What is not does not exist is there" = Tauletology. Remember that word? You've had a lot of trouble with her in the past. She says that the claim is trivial - her equivalent of A is A.

    "What is not random is planned" - not a tautology. It is certainly possible to think of things that are neither random nor planned. For example, if I release a ball from the air, it falls down. It's not random, but it's also not the result of the fall fairy plotting its course.

    You *assume* that anything that is not completely random, is the design of some higher being. Ok, want to put it down? suppose But call the child by his name - all your swans are completely perpendicular to science, and are actually just all kinds of different ways to chew on the claim "I believe in God and therefore I deny the scientific experiments and their results. I believe that the answer to every question is "this is how God decided", and I am not at all interested in trying to investigate nature because I already know the answers. The rabbi told me what they were, and I don't care that a large part of the time the answers he gave me don't correspond to reality at all."

  199. Raphael
    You're actually asking why there are legalities at all, aren't you? Why, for example, are there 61 elementary particles and 4 forces?

  200. Raphael,

    I realised. So you say that because I don't know how to tell you why an electron has an electric charge exactly the way it does, or to explain on a philosophical level why there is an electric force in nature at all (note that on a practical level I know very well - in nature there is a certain symmetry called U(1) from the existence of which it is possible to conclude that an electromagnetic force is required), because I do not have a final answer to every question in nature - then the existence of the electric force should be ignored when performing a probabilistic calculation.

    You are without a doubt one of the sharpest minds I have come across.

  201. Raphael,

    Why do you insist that the behavior of matter should be determined by an intelligent being? Take for example graphite and diamond, the former is a very soft and brittle material, while the latter is one of the hardest materials in nature.

    Both are made up only of carbon atoms, the only difference between them is the different arrangement of the atoms.

    Why is it difficult for you to accept such a simple thing? Why do you insist on complicating it?

  202. Miracles First of all I don't understand anything because I will be miserable. Second thing, do you hear yourself? You want me to prove that what is not random is planned? Maybe you want me to also prove that what is not there is there?

  203. Albenzo and Ethan, the car analogy is good and is not related to the fact that cars do not reproduce, but to the fact that both a car and a biological system require a number of components in order to function minimally. Therefore the analogy is excellent and demonstrates exactly why gradual development is impossible. And again, this question has nothing to do with the car not replicating. This is a purely technical question.

    Albanzo, you are actually wrong, as I have stood your ground myself. Maybe you didn't notice, so I'll clarify again - indeed, there may be billions of other meaningful combinations and it's definitely not one useful sequence. That's why I didn't claim that the chance of this is one in 300^20. I specifically said that even if there are about 300^10 possible useful combinations (a number so large that it's hard to even imagine it) this still leaves us with a 90 in 10^XNUMX chance of finding a functional sequence. If you still make the same claim I will approach the argument from another direction.

  204. rival,

    I was referring specifically to Shoton and the discussion that followed. I noticed that you pointed this out to him earlier, but it seemed that as soon as he started talking about a specific example, you forgot that his whole premise was just one giant lie, and you went over the small details with him.

    I also have a response waiting on hold. It is not clear.

  205. Rival, you defined how the law of nature works and not what the law of nature is and why it is binding.
    I'll tell you what the definition is to me. A law is a form of binding behavior enforced by an intelligent being with a will such as a creator of the world, a king, a parliamentary government.
    The subject of the law can have free will and then he has the option of disobeying the law and bearing the consequences. He can also be an entity that does not have free will such as matter and then it has no option not to obey the law.

  206. Raphael

    You claim that a law binds a legislator. Natural laws are not laws in the legal sense. do you understand this?

    You claim that everything that is not random requires a plan. Please prove it, because I think otherwise.

  207. Raphael,

    "Ethan and Rivy, I'm ready to hear what your definition of natural law is"

    "Law of nature" means how the material behaves (for example during interaction with bodies or other materials) and what properties it will have, as I told you before, this is due to its internal structure (the molecules that make it up, and the atoms from which it is built).

  208. "There are electrical forces and chemical effects that control which structures amino acids can fit into and which can't." there is. There just is. Why? So!

  209. Hi elbentzo,

    "You are ignoring something very important: he still makes the same stupid assumption (which is 100% wrong as any simple experiment in the laboratory shows) that the probability density is uniform"

    I didn't actually ignore the issue, I wrote to him first:

    "Do the probability calculations you talked about earlier for the creation of the first living cell take into account the uneven distribution of connecting these atoms and molecules to those? …. And to sharpen the matter - note that every protein created in our body always folds into the same three-dimensional shape, even though theoretically (according to "probability calculations") it can fold into millions of other shapes."

    PS - I wrote two more messages that have not yet been published...

  210. In other words, the processes of creation of organic substances and their arrangement in structures *are* not random. People who understand nothing in mathematics think that statistics = randomness. that every statistical problem is equivalent to the problem of rolling a dice, where there are 6 possibilities and the probability of each of them is one sixth.

    After all, no creationist, no matter how stupid, will not try to explain to you that the process of gas expansion inside a container is random. There are laws (thermodynamic, derived from electromagnetic interactions) that determine the procedure. But for some reason, when it comes to organic molecules instead of inorganic, suddenly everything has to be completely random, you can ignore physics and chemistry, the probability of each process is uniform, and any other nonsense you want to invent.

  211. Between, quite…
    The car (or watch) argument has already been mined
    A car is a false analogy for a living cell
    A car does not multiply
    A car does not interact biochemically with its environment
    The car has no hereditary material capable of changes

    This argument is a lie that creationists always throw out and has already become a classic lie.
    You make a false claim (there is an analogy between a living cell and a car), go on to claim that it is a claim made by biologists and then try to refute the claim and claim that the refutation of this claim (which no one has made) is the refutation of evolution.
    Here's an analogy for your straw man argument: Science claims there is a structural analogy between an orange and a frying pan. Omelettes cannot be fried on an orange. Science is wrong. there is a God.

  212. adversary and firm,

    Although the points you raised are correct - Bio does require that the system maintain the action it is intended for (as proof, he brought an article that says they found 310 amino acids necessary for filament formation, and uses this as proof that the system is required by at least 310 amino acids), and he does ignore the number of parallel experiments that are taking place (" I will bring a solution to this later...", yeah right), but you are also ignoring something very important:

    It still makes the same dumb assumption (which is 100% wrong as any simple lab experiment shows) that the probability density is uniform. That is, if there are 310 amino acids and each of them has 10 possibilities, then there is a 10^-310 chance that their spontaneous assembly will give the correct sequence. As has already been explained here quite extensively, this is simply a lie. It's like saying that if I leave a ball in the air, there are an infinite number of directions it can move to (parameterized by a solid angle of 4 pi), therefore the probability that it will move downward is one divided by infinity, that is 0.

    You don't have to go down to the level of "how many experiments are being conducted at the same time" or "is the spontaneous creation of 310 amino acids or 100". It is enough to understand that the calculation he is doing here is based on a lie based on a basic misunderstanding of what probability is. At the end of the day, there are electrical forces and chemical effects that control which structures amino acids can fit into and which can't. The fact that there is a huge event space does not mean that the probability of one of the events in it is a finite number, for example 0.1.

  213. Well, I see that it takes my father time to release comments, so here is the response without the link:


    Why a car, I want to go with a snowflake example, look what a beautiful snowflake we have here:

    * I linked here to a lovely picture of a beautiful symmetrical snowflake! *

    It looks very complex, and it was created gradually step by step... starting from a frozen sliver of water, to the lovely thing you see in the picture, doesn't this contradict your argument a bit? That a complex thing can be created gradually without a planner?

  214. Miracles I already said that. We do not know that the creator of the world does not bind, but a law binds a legislator. Second thing, if the proteins were not created randomly, then they were not created randomly, which means someone created them.

  215. Bio
    The argument you make is wrong.

    I'll say it again - we don't think that complex proteins were formed randomly.

    Maybe we'll stop with the straw man claims?

  216. rival,

    Are you really that innocent?

    Both sides are not interested in revealing the truth...

    You think I am the first among the 8 billion inhabitants of the earth
    Who thought about checking the cocoon?

  217. rival,

    Are you really that innocent?

    Both sides are not interested in revealing the truth...

    You think I am the first among the 8 billion inhabitants of the earth
    Who thought about checking the cocoon?

  218. Rival and firm. First, even if the entire universe was infested with mutants it simply wouldn't be enough. Due to a number of simple facts that I may insist on later. At the moment, the more important question is whether or not there is gradation in the development of proteins. Eitan claims yes, here is the proof that it is not: an excellent analogy would be from a car - is it possible by jumping one component at a time, to develop a car gradually, where each step is useful for some benefit (if not for the car, then for something else)?. It is not possible. So why do you think this is possible in evolution?

  219. "The ratio can easily reach 90^10, so the age of the universe simply won't be enough"


    Do your calculations take into account that this experiment (the attempt to create a minimal protein) took place not in one place, but in billions of places throughout the universe at the same time, for 13.8 billion years in a row?

    And does your calculation take into account the uneven distribution we discussed earlier?

  220. Bio
    I'm guessing you've received the same answer several times already and chose to ignore it.
    Why do you make an unproven claim that the protein activity as it is today has been the same throughout the ages?
    There is no reason to assume that the function of the protein was not different in the past when the amino acid sequence was different.
    You attribute "purpose" to a protein based on its current activity and therefore assume that the protein was not capable of change.
    There are dozens and dozens of evidences that indicate that the functional function of organs, proteins and genes has changed throughout evolution.
    You simply choose to assume that the protein/organ had an initial purpose when it was designed that never changed and therefore no aspect of it can be changed for fear of its current activity being compromised.
    In addition, you ignore the fact that not all possible mutations will completely destroy the structure of the protein and there are many mutations called silent mutations because of their ability to occur without affecting the protein.
    Of course you didn't mention some read and fold correction mechanisms that exist in cells. These mechanisms apparently evolved in the first unicellular organisms and were preserved in the transition to multicellular organisms.

  221. Rival, that's exactly what I wrote. The problem is in the ratio of useful vs. unhelpful sequences. As I've shown, the ratio can easily reach 90^10, so the age of the universe simply won't be enough. Nissim tried to solve it by the Multiverse. The problem is that this is not a scientific explanation, since it is not possible to test whether receiving universes exist. In fact, even if the multiverse was a proven fact, there would be no need for evolution. We can claim that any possibility is possible and man could also develop in Mecca. By the way, regarding the question asked here - if the planner himself has always existed, then he is not required to be a planner. This is in contrast to a person whose beginning is known.

  222. "The question here is how the sequence that ensures the correct folding of the protein is created. And without creating some flop in the middle or in a critical loop"


    I assume that there were a lot of proteins that folded incorrectly and created a useless fluffer, that's why they didn't survive and you see today only those that did fold correctly.

  223. Skeptical, so why not remove the "ambiguity" and reveal the "truth"?

    You're not part of the conspiracy, are you? So why not conduct a simple experiment in your home, prove that the contents of the cocoon inside are liquid and upload the photos to the Internet? what are you afraid of ? It sounds so simple.

  224. don't you feel

    As I have already written,
    There is a conspiracy between the "religious" and "scientists"

    keep the topic vague,
    Since in every discovery of the truth,
    Two currents will have to admit that they were wrong and misled the public,
    For more than a hundred years…

    Everything we have written here on this subject,
    is an idle argument...
    Both of these currents would like this debate to continue…

  225. It seems to me that the matter of proteins should be refined a bit.

    First, proteins do fold into an intricate one-dimensional structure. And they do it by the sequence dictated to them. As a result of the sequence, hydrophobic, hydrophilic and more interactions take place, and thus the protein folds into the correct structure.

    The question here is how the sequence that ensures the correct folding of the protein is created. And without creating some flop in the middle or in a critical loop. It is known that even a change of one amino acid in a protein 300 acids long can almost completely disrupt the structure of the protein, and hence also its function. A great analogy would be a safe lock. Such a lock will open only if a specific code is given, as opposed to trillions of codes which are complete gibberish. A protein 100 ha long can be compared to a safe lock 100 digits long. Of course, unlike safes, there is in principle an astronomical number of possible functional sequences. The question is what percentage they make up of the total. And as far as we know they make up zero percent. And it is not for nothing that the evolution scientists themselves do not accept the development of proteins in Mecca, but talk about the degree. But there is no such rank. A protein that connects two substrates, for example, will need two binding sites, and probably also an active site that performs the catalytic activity (for example aminoacyl transferase rna synthetase, which connects amino acid to trn). That's why every protein requires some kind of minimum that cannot be reduced. What is the minimum? In the flagellin protein for example (which is a building block from the tail of the whip and hence its name) about 310 KHA are required in its minimal version:

    So even if there are about 300^10 possible functional sequences (much higher than the number of atoms in the double universe itself), we would need about 90^10 mutations for the development of a standard protein. Which is roughly something like 30^10 years.

  226. But God also thinks/acts according to certain legalities (which we don't understand) who enacts the laws according to which he acts?

  227. Raphael
    You have finished the discussion as far as you are concerned.
    Why does a law require a legislator?
    Why doesn't a legislator demand a law?
    You attribute to the characteristics of the universe a human quality of law when your understanding of law is: a binding instruction.
    The definition of a scientific law is not the same as a human law.
    Why do you think a law requires a legislator?

  228. Ok, so to conclude the discussion, the answer is we don't know and it is possible that we will never know. I think there is no way there would be laws without a legislator.
    You can move on to the next question.

  229. "There are forces in nature that operate with a very defined and precise legality. Why? What is the explanation for this?"


    The legality you are talking about stems from the structure of the material, why is the material structured this way and not otherwise? I do not have an answer.

  230. Raphael, why are you trying so hard to humanize the ball, the proteins, the atoms and the forces?
    Your attempt to find intention is an attempt to treat inanimate objects and forces as people and attribute to them goals, desires, needs and aspirations for the future. To continue the discussion you must stop treating the subjects of the discussion as people. (unless we are talking about people).
    Your question will have weight if you ask: Why do proteins behave the way they do?
    The answer to this would be because of the properties of atoms.
    I am guessing that the answer to your next question will be: because of the properties of the subatomic particles
    The answer that follows will be: because of the properties of the elementary particles.
    The answer to your next question will be: we don't know yet, we may never know, but there are several theories that currently cannot be tested.
    At this point, the God of Gaps will enter the discussion.
    I hope I saved the commenters here unnecessary words

  231. Yariv There are forces in nature that operate with a very defined and precise legality. Why? What is the explanation for this?

  232. Raphael,

    It has nothing to do with intention or desire, the responding objects don't need to "know" anything. When an asteroid enters the atmosphere from space and collides with the water there in the Atlantic Ocean, how does the water "know" that it should splash in all directions?

    Little do they know, the asteroid is just pushing them, and they are being pushed.

  233. Raphael,

    I just can't talk to you. They explain to you that it is impossible to do something from a scientific point of view, and instead of investigating or trying to understand the answer, you immediately respond, "This is evasion, because you know that if you did it, you would get a result that contradicts your worldview."

    That's how life works on your side - you avoid things so they don't obscure your worldview. It's not like that with us. Everything that can be calculated, computers. Everything that can be measured, is measured. After there are measurements, calculations, predictions, etc. - only then do we determine what is probably true and what is not.

    Do yourself a favor - go to the Open University website, go to the statistics and probability course and watch the first lecture. One hour of post-secondary education at a university open to all - that's all it takes for you to get it into your head that it's simply *impossible* to calculate probability without a density factor. This is not evasion, this is not opinion. just not mathematically defined. But you won't, because you're too much of a coward. Just as in the last few days I have proved you wrong maybe 50 times, and still once you did not have the courage to say, "You are right. I was wrong. I don't understand (black holes/cosmology/probability/evolution/delete the unnecessary). I will study your arguments and answer in an intelligent way when I understand what you are talking about."

  234. My opponent understood, but with the ball I know I'm kicking and I'm doing it on purpose. Is this also the case with the forces applied to the atom? How do the forces know this is what they are supposed to do?

  235. Raphael,

    They don't "know" anything, they simply react to the forces exerted on them.

    If you kick the ball, how does he know that he should fly into the goal? He doesn't know, he's just reacting to the force you exerted on him with your leg.

  236. Rival How do the atoms know that they should obey repulsive and attractive forces?

  237. Raphael,

    He doesn't know, he folds into this shape because of the forces of repulsion and attraction that exist between the atoms. It's like if you throw two magnets towards each other they will always connect to the north side of one, the south side of the other. You will never naturally form a South-South, or North-North connection.

  238. rival
    Answer - no. On the other hand, I also did not receive another calculation, but only an answer that cannot be calculated. I suspect that there is an issue here to avoid because it may turn out that the probability is very low to impossible.

    Now I will ask you a question - how does the folding protein know that this is what it should do?

  239. Hi Raphael, here is a first question:

    Do the probability calculations you talked about earlier for the creation of the first living cell take into account the uneven distribution of connecting these atoms and molecules to those?

    And to sharpen the matter - note that every protein created in our body always folds into the same three-dimensional shape, even though theoretically (according to "probability calculations") it can fold into millions of other shapes.

    I would be happy if you answer the question.

  240. Come on, Raphael
    elbontzo drafted a response that more or less sums up why your claims, as you phrase them, have no validity in a scientific discussion.
    Instead of referring to the body of an argument, you refer to the claimant in a passive aggressive combination of attacking him as a hypocrite and insulted innocence.
    No one will argue that you are not worthy of having a conversation. Yes, they will argue that if your definition of a conversation is ignoring every time you are presented with a fallacy in your arguments, or a rough transition from topic to topic instead of addressing the arguments, in this case, people will say (rightly) that your responses are not worthy of consideration.
    People take the trouble to answer you in a patient and detailed manner, it is appropriate that you answer in the same currency and not by disrespecting and dismissing the respondents.

  241. With them, I don't have the possibility to answer all the questions at once, nor do I have time to type answers as long as the exile. If you volunteer to represent all the respondents and discuss with me only one topic at a time - I would be happy to do so.
    ALBENZO I don't have the strength to argue with you. I can't find a way to have a conversation with you without you constantly explaining to me why I don't even deserve to have a conversation with you.
    I love science. Appreciate the scientists. But hates hypocrites.

  242. Raphael
    Rival, elbentzo, walking death, nisim and others answer your questions and you ignore or change the subject.
    Instead of answering, you attack them or just assume they think you're stupid.
    Why are you unable to conduct a discussion without reaching arguments that criticize the claimant and not his claim?
    A bystander sees one side that is having a conversation and one side that ignores and avoids.
    If you are so convinced that you have valid arguments, you should have no problem explaining them and providing a consistent explanation for how you came to your conclusion. (By the way, you have the right to end a discussion with "I have no proof or logical explanation, this is simply my belief and I am not trying to give it scientific validity")
    Perhaps the discussions here should be divided into points (1. 2. 3. etc.). Maybe that way it will be easier for you to refer to the explanations of the other commenters.

  243. Raphael,

    It is not a matter of who is stupid and who is not. It's a matter of a little humility. To say to yourself, "Wait, I don't really understand what I'm talking about, maybe I should learn before I explain to people who do understand the field that they are talking nonsense."

    You keep saying that you have a lot of respect for science, but words are separate and actions are separate. You take things that you don't understand the basis of the basis of their basis (for example, not knowing what a probability density is and still arguing about probabilities, or arguing about Hawking radiation when you think that it is radiation at all that does not extract information from the black hole but from its immediate surroundings , and many more examples), you don't study them, you ignore all the knowledge accumulated by scientists who invested their lives in researching the subject, and explain to everyone from the height of your ignorance that they are wrong and you are right.

    I asked you a question, and of course you ignored it, but I'll try again and ask you a very similar question in a slight paraphrase: Let's say I don't understand anything in the Torah - absolutely nothing, I've never read it, I don't distinguish between Moses and Goliath, I don't know what the covenant is between the people of Israel and God - Absolutely nothing. Then I come to the rabbis who have spent their entire lives studying the Torah, interpreting it, bringing it to religious people who live in the modern age and need an interpreter, and begin to explain to them that they are talking nonsense. To tell them that they do not know what they are talking about, that it is permissible to eat meat and milk because it only says "a goat in its mother's milk", begins to invent arguments that are based on verses that are not written in the Torah at all but that I invented, tells them that they are blind, accuses them of conspiracies whose purpose is only to gain power and control their soma crowd, etc.

    Would you consider me a person who respects the Jewish religion and its believers? Answer honestly.

    That's exactly what you do. You say the words "I respect science", but your behavior is simply the height of contempt. And underestimating science is not only unattractive, it's also just stupid. After all, science has a remarkably successful track record. If all scientists were really blind and twisted as you keep saying, do you think you would have a computer and internet today? Do you think you would have survived the strep throat you had as a child? Do you think you could get to work by car, and that you had running water at home?

    I have no problem with the fact that you don't understand anything in science, and specifically in my fields (math, physics). I have a problem with you defiling science with your dogma. Because if you don't understand anything about probability, then how do you decide which calculation and which not? If you don't understand anything about cosmology, how do you know how to write comments about the big bang? Everything you write is dictated not by scientific knowledge, but solely by a worldview (in your case, religious). And it's just disgusting.

  244. Raphael, I would love to hear from you a substantive answer to elbentzo's words.

    Do the probability calculations for the creation of a primary living cell that you talked about earlier take into account the uneven distribution of connecting these atoms and molecules to each other?

    And to sharpen the matter, note that every protein that is created regularly in our body always folds into the same three-dimensional shape, even though theoretically (according to "probability calculations") it can fold into millions of other shapes.

  245. It seems to me that we have exhausted our opponent. We recycle constantly.
    ALBENZO You're the smart one and I'm the fool. What's new?

  246. Raphael,

    First of all, learn to read. I clearly wrote, in black and white, that it is *impossible* to calculate the probability! To calculate a probability, you need a probability density function, which is simply an item of information that modern science does not yet have. We know for sure that this PN - maybe we will be able to map it soon and maybe it will take a little more time - is by definition not a fixed PN, that is, not a uniform probability. It is determined by the electrical forces acting between the molecules.

    Now, regarding your hysterical claim that this is just my opinion... listen, I don't know how to explain this to you. Mathematics - not really a matter of opinion. You see, if you solve the equation X+2=3, you get 9 and I show you that you're wrong - you can't tell me it's just my opinion... I mean, you can. But after that you'll have to ask yourself why everyone thinks you're such a moron.

    The probabilistic argument is wrong, because to arrive at it a constant probability density is used. We still don't know exactly what the real Phon is, but we know with 100% certainty that it is not a permanent Phon! And this is both from basic experiments in the laboratories of protein assemblies (there are certain ways that the organic molecules like to get along, and ways that they don't, that is, there is no equal probability for each option) and from a theoretical point of view (what to do, there are electrical forces that work in the molecules and you can't decide that they disappear because that's how it comes to which Christian preacher to make his miscalculation).

    Clear enough for you?

  247. Raphael, as explained to you first, it's a matter of reasonableness.

    Since we were not born yesterday, and we know that people are murdered for one reason or another by other people, then in the case you described, this is the most logical and likely scenario. But when you come across phenomenon X (life) that you don't understand yet, and you assume that the answer to it is Y, which is much more complicated than the phenomenon you are trying to explain, that is already a problem, and it is a bad explanation.

  248. Yariv Take the example given by Albenzo - two enter a room and see a man there with a slitted throat and no knife next to him. One says he was murdered and the other says he slipped on the knife and then the knife pierced his throat and from the force of the blow it flew through the window and then someone came and took it. Which of the two is right and where can he prove his claim?
    Regarding your second comment, it is evident that you underestimate me and my intelligence as is customary.

  249. To say: "Because I don't understand phenomenon X, then God Almighty must have created it" is ridiculous, this is not the way to understand things.

  250. Raphael, science does not rule out anything in advance. Science is looking for the real answers and the right explanations for everything.

    If you manage to prove that God is the one who created everything, science will have no problem accepting it, but first prove it.

  251. Yariv, of course I thought and came to the conclusion that there is a creator of the world and that he gave us the Torah and that's why I also took action and repented at a relatively late age.

  252. "But we don't stop to think why there will be laws all of a sudden. Who enacted them? Who forces all nature to follow them"

    And you yourself have you ever stopped to think why would there be an almighty God? How was it created? Does this make any sense at all? Are the fairy tales told to you as a child true?

    First apply your advice to your own private beliefs, then advise and preach to others.

  253. Good miracles. My arguments are main

    Rivals are looking for answers but in advance rule out any possibility of the existence of a creator for the world. All scientific proofs rely on the laws of nature as science knows them today but do not stop to think why there would be laws. Who enacted them? Who forces all nature to follow them.

  254. Raphael, science does search (all the time!) for answers regarding the big bang, the laws of nature, the question of the formation of life and many other questions, the fact that answers to the above questions have not yet been found does not mean that we have to invent imaginary answers that have no relation to reality.

    "God" is the worst possible answer, because you did not explain how he himself was created, and his creation is tens of millions of times more complicated than all the questions you raised here.

  255. Raphael
    The truth is that we have no reason to think that there is no scientific explanation for everything we ask. And there are many reasons to think that there is no "God".
    The arguments of the believers presented here are wrong at best, and at worst they are simply false.

    You can discuss anything, but you also have to listen. And honestly - listening is not the strong point of the religious side in this discussion.

  256. Raphael
    The truth is that we have no reason to think that there is no scientific explanation for everything we ask. And there are many reasons to think that there is no "God".
    The arguments of the believers presented here are wrong at best, and at worst they are simply false.

    You can discuss anything, but you also have to listen. And honestly - listening is not the side of the religious side in this discussion.

  257. one
    You are the one who is not looking for answers about the big bang, about the existence of natural laws in the world, about the formation of life. Regarding what I said about the creator of the world - this stems from ignorance. If you are looking for answers - there are many books on this, I am not going to talk about it here.

    I'd rather know the truth.

    WD answered you. I also enjoy reading about the innovations in the field of science and debating with you a bit to refine things.

    You said why you think it's wrong in your opinion. Not everyone thinks like you. You also didn't say what the probability is.

    No mystery and no plaster.

  258. K.

    Raphael has already answered before what he is doing here. He is here to make people "think outside the box". Unfortunately for him later, after a short discussion between us, he was forced to admit that none of the people he accuses of "thinking inside the box" are really guilty of it, so there is no reason for him to respond here at all. Since then he is afraid to address my comments.

    The real reason why he is still responding here is a mystery (perhaps the reason Shmulik gave as an explanation is indeed the correct one).

  259. Raphael,

    I also explained explicitly what is wrong with the argument of the probability calculation. The calculation *assumes* the existence of a uniform probability density (that is, the chance that an order of proteins will be formed is completely random), when in reality it is not close at all. We don't know exactly what the probability density function looks like, but there are people who map it (it is subject to known physical and chemical laws) and it is really uneven.

    The calculation you're talking about assumes that everything is completely random and then shows that it doesn't make sense, when in fact no person who studies abiogenesis has even thought for a moment to say that creating proteins (or replicating) is a completely random process. It is obviously subject to electrical, chemical, etc. forces.

  260. Raphael,
    Do you notice that you keep avoiding answers?
    I asked a simple question. After you didn't answer I added what was clearly not the answer to the question (because it is evident from your behavior here), and I still asked you what you were doing here, and again you evaded.
    If your belief in God is strengthened by the fact that science still does not have satisfactory answers to everything, have fun, just know that it is a faulty logical link. If you want I will explain to you why, but as mentioned so far you do not give the impression that you are interested in learning anything, especially not about the errors that you used or that were presented by others and you support them for an unknown reason. So I'll ask again - what are you doing here?
    When you are asked about the only contribution you can possibly provide to the discussion, namely your own positions, you are evasive. This is your right of course, but it again raises the question of what are you doing here? It's just weird. All the reasonable explanations that come to my mind right now are not very flattering to you, so I will put them aside and simply ask you - what are you doing here?

  261. Raphael
    certainly. Would you rather believe that someone planned this whole mess? for what purpose? Are we here as servants? A terrible thought to me.

  262. "Why get involved. We simply close our eyes and say that everything happened by itself and peace be upon Israel"

    True, why get involved and try to find answers. We close our eyes and say that everything happened by itself, one bright day an almighty God suddenly appeared to him. And because he was terribly bored, he decided to create us humans, so that we would worship him from morning to evening and relieve his boredom.

    Now he is no longer bored.

    Makes sense, everything finally works out.

  263. Miracles, you are right. Why get involved. We simply close our eyes and say that everything happened by itself and peace be upon Israel.

  264. Raphael
    I also say that the first replicator was almost certainly much simpler than the protein in question.
    I also say that there is no scientific reason to assume a creator. It's a complicated explanation, without any evidence and creates far more questions than answers. Why get involved?

  265. Raphael

    "I was just told that the argument is wrong"

    why lie? Apart from the fact that they brought here explanations as to why the argument is wrong. I suggested that I show you why the argument is wrong (because we've already gotten used to you ignoring reading long explanations), by doing the calculation on your own and telling you where the error is. Your response unsurprisingly was an indifference. Don't be dumbfounded, you don't want an explanation and you don't want to understand, and if I'm wrong and you do want to, then you really don't act like a person who wants to understand.

  266. "You have no explanation for its formation and you have no way to prove that it was not created by a Creator"

    Raphael is a matter of probability, it is much more likely that it was created by itself (and it doesn't matter how exactly) than to assume that something millions of times more complex than it created it, because then you have to explain how it was created.

    It's the first and second of logic.

  267. Camilia, you ask and answer for me, so why do you need my answers?
    They didn't explain miracles, they just told me that the argument was wrong. Besides, what does it matter to a protein or any other primary animal molecule? After all, you have already said more than once that you have no explanation for its creation and that you have no way to prove that it was not created by a Creator.

  268. Raphael
    Even non-Jews should be loved!!!! Just the same!!

    We talked about the probability of a protein exit. Several people have explained to you that the argument is wrong. What was your attitude, if not disdain?

  269. Raphael,
    Be honest with yourself and ask what you are doing on this site.
    You are not here to learn about science because your comments make that clear.
    You are not here to discuss science because so far you have not shown that you have anything to offer, neither relevant knowledge nor critical (or logical) thinking.
    So what are you here for?

  270. I have never scoffed at science. But I admit that I have sinned and scoffed at arrogant people who think that I am nothing more. They are also not to be mocked. Every Jew should be loved.

  271. Raphael
    You enter the science site, a scientific site, and try to convince that the scientists are stupid. You look for holes in theories you don't understand. You had one reasonable argument out of nowhere, and I explained to you where you are wrong - so you play the offended?

    There are religious people who are very smart, you will never find them arguing with scientists, about things that science deals with.

    You have the right to believe in God. But, if you come here scoffing at science, don't be so surprised by the results!

  272. Yariv I will not answer you in this framework and my reasons are reserved with me. You are allowed to think what you want.

  273. Raphael
    In my family there are religious, ultra-Orthodox and also a priest.. I have close friends who are very religious.

    I do not despise anyone's faith.

    But - if people combine false and sometimes debunked arguments in the discussion, and at the same time underestimate science, then I don't have too much respect for such people.

    Rafael, for example, makes an interesting argument, but when you gently explain to him that he is wrong, he moves on.

    A skeptic for example, calls me a liar, but is not ready to substantiate this statement. On the other hand he himself makes up stories and makes sounds as if he understands what he is talking about.

  274. "Opponent, if someone answers you how the big bang happened, what was there first and how and why the bang started and also proves it, then I will answer your question"

    Raphael, I'm just trying to understand your logic and that of the other believers, on the one hand you claim that it is impossible for an intelligent being like Adam to have been created on its own, but at the same time you insist that an entity much, much more... more intelligent, was created on its own.

    Do you really not see the contradiction?

    If God was created alone, why not us?!

  275. Albenzo regarding the extended throat is exactly what you say. I don't know how the world was created, therefore for me the world was created by itself, that is, the throat is stretched by itself.

  276. Raphael,

    not at all I gave you two reasons why your statement "I want to say that there are many people like me who think that it is more likely to assume that there is a creator for the world than to assume that everything is a coincidence and there is no room for contempt for their opinions." She is nonsense.

    Am I wrong about one or both of them? There is nothing more than that. You said something, and I refuted it. Now, either you find fault with my rebuttal, or you accept that you were talking nonsense. Which of the options is correct?

  277. Raphael,

    So your answer to your opponent is "I don't have to justify anything I say, until science solves every question I can think of." As long as there is something that science has not solved, then I'm allowed to say as much nonsense as I want and I don't have to give any evidence, any proofs, any testimonies, and any reasons for anything."

    Besides, as already explained to you - you don't need to know the answer to the question "what caused the big bang" to know that it happened. If you enter a room where there is a man with his throat slit, do you say "I don't know who the murderer is, so as far as I'm concerned, no murder has been committed"?

    The Big Bang was supported by countless cosmological measurements, and predictions that matched it. No attempt to disprove it has ever been successful. But you - who know absolutely nothing about him (and if you think I'm slandering you, I'd be very happy to test your knowledge on the subject) - decided that because we still haven't discovered what preceded it or why it happened, then you don't need to justify your arguments.

    Well, what did I expect?

  278. Rival, if someone answers you how the big bang happened, what was there first and how and why the bang started and also proves it, then I will answer your question.

  279. First of all, I am allowed to answer whoever I want. I don't need your permission.

    Second, as usual - you avoid and don't even try to address things, but try to find indirect ways to attack me or make me not be seen in a negative light.

    Third and last - I did not advise nail polish. not to correspond with you. I told her that in my experience, explanations (however detailed) about the failure of the probability calculation will not contribute to the discussion, because those who bring these arguments from the beginning (about the small probability) are people who understand nothing about probability, and the explanation that shows why the argument is wrong will not impress them. If you understood probability, you would know that without a probability density function there is no ability to calculate any probability of anything. Then when you would read from a Christian preacher (or a Jewish convert who copied the argument from him) that "the probability of a spontaneous creation is less than one part of the number of particles in the universe", you would immediately ask yourself how he could have calculated this without the knowledge of Pohn's probability density of creation Spontaneity of replicating systems.

  280. I will try to answer them all at once. I do not despise either science or scientists. On the contrary - I appreciate them very much and am very interested in science. Because it's interesting. Because it strengthens my faith in God.
    Albenzo nail polish advice. Don't answer me why don't you listen to this advice yourself?

  281. Raphael,

    There are two failures in your statement "I want to say that there are many people like me who think that it is more likely to assume that there is a creator for the world than to assume that everything is a coincidence and there is no room for contempt for their opinions."

    1. God and evolution (or any other scientific theory) are not on the same level. God is a matter of faith - no one can disprove his existence, and no one can prove it either. If you believe - bless you, if not - then no. But scientific theory does not work like that. It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of examining evidence. If someone comes to me and says "Electric current is the movement of electrons in a conductor, and I think God created the electrons and the forces that guide them", I will have nothing to say to him. But if he tells me "I don't think there is such a thing as an electron, it is God who causes all the natural phenomena that we associate with the electron", it is no longer a philosophical matter. There are experiments, there are evidences, there are facts, and to deny them you have to be blind, whether by choice or not.

    2. A large part of the contempt you feel from some of the commenters here stems from the fact that you talk about things, which are sometimes very complex and complicated, that you don't have *a bit* of understanding about, but you still allow yourself to determine what is true and what is not. For example, the very fact that you keep repeating "by chance" when the theory of evolution is not coincidental at all. It has a certain mechanism of creating variety through random mutations, but evolution is not random (as, for example, quantum mechanics is not random even though it is a probabilistic theory). Every time you repeat it, you only prove again and again that you do not have even a basic knowledge of the subjects you are talking about, and therefore the judgment you pass on them is ridiculous, and even insults and belittles the people who study the subjects seriously.

    Imagine if someone came to you and said that he does not believe that the Torah is true because it is written in it "And God came to Abraham and said to him: "If ever humans build a machine that will fly in the sky, it means that I do not exist! I give you my word as the creator of the world that humans will never build a machine that flies in the sky." You would try to explain to him that there is no such thing at all in the Torah, and that he is relying on incorrect sources or that he misunderstood something he read. But he is in his own right - he will continue to argue with you based on this one verse which is, of course, not true at all. It is likely that in this case you would also develop some anger or contempt for him, at least after months of pointless arguments.

  282. Raphael,
    More likely based on what? Since I have not heard an explanation that is based on rational thinking (without logical fallacies) and evidence in the field (I have already heard several "explanations" that do not meet these threshold requirements), I can understand where the contempt comes from, especially when such people visit a site that deals with science issues and behave in a way - How to say, a bit cheeky.
    But I don't care that much right now. Want to answer the questions I and others asked you?

  283. "Miracles then why do you find it appropriate to despise on this site those who believe there is a creator of the world?"

    Raphael, let me ask you the opposite question - why do so many of the believers despise the same science to which they run so quickly when they are sick or do not feel well? Why do people's disdain believe in the answers that science gives that come from scientific research? (age of the world, evolution and more)

  284. No Raphael, I don't want to subscribe to "values", I want you to explain to me, in your own words.

    What is the problem ? You know the answer, don't you? (God "always existed", he is "above space and time", he is immaterial... isn't that the answer?)

  285. K. I want to say that there are many people like me who think that it is more likely to assume that there is a creator for the world than to assume that everything is a coincidence and there is no room for contempt for their opinions.

  286. Raphael,
    I suspect that the disdain Nissim displays is not for the very belief in the concept of God (Nissim please correct me if I'm wrong).

  287. Miracles then why do you find it appropriate to despise on this site those who believe that there is a creator for the world?

  288. Raphael,
    If your question is about the probability of the creation of the first animal (which I have no idea what it was) then I have already answered you - I have no idea. I have not yet seen any satisfactory calculation on the subject, so my conclusion is that I have no idea, but still all the evidence indirectly points to a natural process from organic matter to an organic replicating being. This does not rule out another explanation of course, but there is no other explanation supported by the evidence, not even indirect.
    Maybe stop going round and round and say what you want?

  289. Raphael
    And you know what? Even then we cannot disprove that God created the world...or even just the first replicator.

  290. Raphael
    I want you to understand something. The significance of knowing the process of the formation of the first replicator (don't call it a cell) is twofold. The first meaning is that we found a suitable chemical/physical process that could have occurred under the conditions that existed then (and there is an assumption here that we will indeed know what the conditions were so long ago).

    The second meaning is that we will prove that there is no other process that can be an explanation!!

  291. K. You avoid direct answers by turning the question into a philosophical question of how to define living. Enough of stretching the rope. Try to answer directly.

  292. Raphael
    happily. I know you are not interested in understanding, but other readers are.

    Evolution nicely explains the variety of life we ​​see today. We know what the mechanism is, and there is countless evidence for the correctness of the explanation. Beyond that - biologists clearly say that what we know cannot be explained without evolution.

    The formation of life is another problem, which we don't know how to answer at the moment, but there are already a number of impressive theories.

    The probabilistic argument is wrong, mainly because it makes wrong assumptions.

    The inextricable complexity argument is interesting. But, to this day there is no mechanism that is proven not to be a freak. And even with such a find, the panspermia explanation definitely solves the problem.

    If I made a mistake in one sentence - show me where and why.

  293. K.

    Many times I myself have written long comments on how to arrive at the numbers Raphael talks about ("numbers smaller than one divided by the number of particles in the universe..."), including of course explanations of the errors in assuming the probability density and many examples (for example: how with the same crooked logic you can get the result which says that the probability that a ball that I leave from a great height will fall in a straight line towards the center of the Earth is 0).

    No one was interested in listening.

    Don't waste any more energy.

  294. Raphael,
    How do you know that there are no traces of natural compounds and processes that might have been abundant in the environment of that first living cell and that were largely similar to it except for the ability to reproduce for example? And in general, what is the necessary minimum in your opinion to speak what would be called alive?

  295. "Which evolution to study, random or intelligent?"


    Evolution is neither random nor rational, it is based on natural selection (of the living environment).

    Do you know what natural selection is? When a tiger chases a herd of deer, he will usually succeed in hunting those who run slower than their fellows in the herd - it's really not random, and certainly not intelligent.

    So go learn evolution by natural selection, is it more understandable to you now?

  296. safkan

    There is not a single example of "unbreakable complexity" that has any basis in reality. The whole argument itself is: we still don't know how it happened, therefore "inextricable complexity". It's complete nonsense of the type: we don't know X therefore argument from ignorance (for example we don't know how the planets move around the sun therefore an imaginary entity is responsible for it).

  297. K. For the sake of simplicity we will only talk about the formation of the first living cell. In this case there are no traces.

  298. K. I didn't calculate it myself but numbers I found in various articles indicate a number that is substantially smaller than one part of all the particles in the visible universe. Also articles by evolutionists not only creationists.

  299. Raphael,
    Straw arguments bore me. If you would like a reference, add to your question/parable knowledge that we already know about the world and that is very, very relevant to the topic. I'll help you a little - in your parable we need to find lots of other notes in all kinds of shapes as well as lots of letters and words and other sentence fragments when in addition we also found natural processes that create (right before our eyes) pieces of notes letters and words. A few more things need to be added. Add them in a proper way (so that you testify to fairness) and I will be happy to discuss the issue. The parable right now is a classic straw man argument that is irrelevant to what I (and science) have to say about the possibility of the emergence of life.

  300. Nissim, let's make another attempt. Decide what you want to talk about and we'll talk about it until we exhaust it. We will try to be focused. Choose between the 3 options you have already uploaded: infinite universe, probability or protein? Of course, everything is in the context of the formation of life and evolution.

  301. K. For years you walk in the desert in a place where no foot has ever set foot and you find a note on which it is written "I wrote this note". One says since there was no one here, it means that this note was written by himself at random and one says there is no way! Someone did write that note.
    Which of the two thinks more logically?

  302. rival

    Her article "Go learn evolution"
    Which evolution to study, random or intelligent?

    You have a flaw in logic.
    Transferring sections" enables the transfer of selective features
    which are not possible otherwise...

    Why is it important to know how the first life was created,
    Before we know how developed life was created?

    In my opinion, we should start from the end, and only if we have the right answers,
    Let's go back, explore the earlier...

  303. Raphael
    What did I write that offended you so much? Are you really that insecure in your faith?
    Too bad, sometimes you present arguments that can be talked about. You only get offended when you are shown that you are wrong. Just like the poor skeptic... calls me a liar out of embarrassment...

  304. Raphael,
    You wrote: "How do you know that a given system is a discharge if you cannot explain at this moment its gradual formation?"

    Did I say we know that? All I expect is that we don't make the dangerous leap: we don't know => it's impossible (which further leads to the even more stupid and equally logically flawed argument => God created the world).
    If we have a system in front of us that we do not know how it was created, we can proceed in at least the following two ways:
    1) Raise your hands, and believe that if we don't know the answer, we probably can't know the answer and therefore we have to accept that the system was designed (?) and created (?!) and that this is the explanation (?!?!) for this whole matter.
    2) To assume that maybe, just maybe, this system is actually not a complexity that is not a discharge, and then check all kinds of things like: can we think of a natural way, relying on materials and mechanisms we know, that such a system could be created? Do we learn anything new from investigating the system, for example about its components, which hint at how it was formed? A scientist chooses the second way, also because in the light of our experience from the past, what seems inextricable at first glance can definitely turn out to be absolutely insane, and also because this approach has already proven itself to be much more productive and leads to new knowledge and discoveries, sometimes even in areas that are not directly related to the original question that is simply Foolish not to try it. When you see something you don't understand, don't you have the curiosity to try to understand how it works/is created? How will you go from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge, if you decide to adopt a dogma (not even obtained by inquiry per se) based on faith. If your belief is in line with reality, no harm has been done, but if your belief is wrong and you choose not to investigate properly (or in this case consider the knowledge gained through scientific research) you may condemn yourself to a prison of ignorance and belief in a false reality. This is your right, of course, but it comes at a high price.

    Maybe you want to try to answer the question I asked the skeptic?
    How do you know that a given system is irreducible? Do you think that an inability to explain the gradual formation of a given system at this moment proves that this system is not a discharge?

  305. Nissim I exhausted the argument with you. Look for my duplicate somewhere in the infinite universe. Maybe he will have patience with you.

  306. K. Let's be purposeful. What is the probability of life forming by chance if we assume that the universe is not infinite? Give the number you know please.
    post Scriptum. All the slanders you said about me pass on you and *** in your hand.

  307. Raphael
    Nice - we have two theories now, and we can apply Bayes' law.
    And now chess…… the probability of creating a simple replicant is much higher than the probability of creating a complete person.
    For me, the issue is closed.

    How do we continue? Just let's leave the stupidity of "irreducible complexity". It's trite.

  308. Bio safkan
    The onus of proof of non-dischargeable complexity is on you.
    good luck with that…. Raphael, you too are welcome to try, to prove.

  309. Those who oppose the study of evolution refuse to believe that they are descended from apes.
    This raises a fascinating research question: from what animal were they created?
    Intuitively, it is requested to examine hypotheses from the arthropod system.

  310. Raphael,
    You wrote: "Regarding the probability, see what Bio wrote below."
    Bio writes nonsense. This is not the first time and probably not the last time he does this, especially in this context, even after receiving professional explanations from someone who knows something about statistics and biology, regarding the source of his errors. You are of course entitled to use the same straw man argument and ignore the errors, some of which have been re-pointed here in this thread, but if that is what you have to offer as an argument relevant to the discussion, then this is about the end of it, because it is simply not interesting. If we take for example other phenomena such as the arrangement of sodium and chlorine atoms in a salt crystal, and ask what is the probability of the particular arrangement of the atoms that you get in the crystal (in each salt crystal) while relying on the model he used, we will "find" that the chance of a salt crystal forming in the particular arrangement we know is zero for all intents and purposes Practical (a small chance by many orders of magnitude from the small number Bio came up with in his stupid calculation). The reason for this stems from the use of an irrelevant statistical model, in this case because of the forces that act between the various atoms and that allow a certain arrangement. And see it's a wonder, amino acids don't join each other with the same probability either, and some knowledge is required about the conditions under which the process of joining them takes place (and there are many factors for this, so the situation is more complex than what happened in the salt crystal). When probabilities are calculated in such a case as if it were an independent lottery of events as if it were the removal of balls from a market (with return), then it is indeed possible to reach very low values ​​which are of course irrelevant, precisely because of the ignoring of all the other factors whose influence we know is important but not decisive. Do you still choose to adopt the straw man argument? Your right, but that's all it is, and by doing so you block yourself from any way to learn anything new about this world, at least on this subject. The loss here is mostly yours.
    By the way, note that even with Bio's obviously wrong calculations (or rather the argument he recycles from Christian creationists) we still don't know how many such events occurred at the same time, so we don't know how small the chances really are, and in any case the requirement is that there should be at least " One "winner".

    You also wrote: "Besides, the fact that according to you there is no other better explanation does not mean that we have no choice but to believe that life was created by chance."
    I don't understand your thought process. You are allowed to believe whatever you want. You are allowed to believe in a talking snake, you are allowed to believe in a magician who took a piece of mud, did hocus pocus and turned it into a person in an instant. It is hard to understand why you would want to believe in such things that have no support, certainly not on a scientific level, but that is your full right. All I clarified is that if you look at the many things we know (thanks to science), which are always less than we would like to know (but that's what research is for...) then the possibility that fits best with this knowledge is the possibility of the formation of life from non-living organic matter, and its continued development Its change in a gradual and natural evolutionary process (which is only partially random!). Does this mean that life began by chance? Maybe, we don't know. Don't like the facts? Your God. It doesn't make sense to you and you insist on not knowing the facts and stick to wrong arguments and logic? Your right, it's still mostly your problem. Do you prefer other "explanations" that are much less logical or grounded? good luck with that. Your full right to believe that life was not created by chance, and your full right to believe any of the thousands of stories invented in the world to "explain" why it is not accidental and why a small group of certain people (always the same group that invented the story) is superior to all others.
    By the way, what is so scary if it turns out that life was created by chance? Can't get out of bed in the morning? Stop admiring the rainbow? Alienate your children? Will you become a zombie? Stop respecting other people? It's really hard for me to understand, especially in light of the fact that there are many whose actual recognition of this possibility did not cause any of these "symptoms".

  311. "It would be simple to show that entire segments of DNA were taken from another production, in order to transfer them in their entirety to a new production..."

    Doubtful, it is much simpler, since from the same ancestor several different animals may develop, then all of them will inherit from him the genes that exist in his body.

    No one has to perform this in a laboratory, nature does it itself.

    You will learn evolution.

  312. bio,

    It is worth adding to your claims,

    that the theory that evolution is intelligent,

    It would be simple to show that entire segments of DNA were taken from another production,
    To transfer them in their entirety to new production...

  313. K.
    How do you know that a given system is a discharge if you cannot explain at this moment its gradual formation?

  314. Hello opponent. The video to which Linkcat claims (by Prof. Ken Miller) that many of the shoton proteins have homologues found elsewhere (eg in the ttss injection system). Here are a number of problems that disprove Miller's claim:

    a) These are homologous but not identical proteins. The difference between two homologous proteins can reach up to 100 amino acids. which is quite a bit at all.

    b) Many of the homologues are generally found in other organisms. So it is not possible to create the shotton by combination in the same organism.

    c) Even if we adopt the combination approach, this does not solve the plausibility problem at all. Without going into the calculations (and if you want I'll go into more detail), consider for yourself what the chances are for a combination of a number of components in a genome 9^10 bases long (in the case of complex creatures like mammals).

    d) Shoton has a number of proteins that have no homologues at all. So it is necessary to explain their origin and a combination will not really help here.

    e) If each system was developed by a combination of components from other systems, this only complicates the problem. For now we will have to explain the development of many other systems from which the same components were taken. It turns out that instead of solving the problem, it just moved to another place. And a snowball effect is created.

  315. rival,

    You are a carpenter for slander, a sign that you do not have a correct answer...

    I ask how they did not study the process in a series of photographs?
    The ability to shoot in sequence has been around for decades.

    But there are no consecutive photographs of this wonderful process...

  316. incidentally,

    The miraculous way of turning the cocoon into a butterfly, which cannot happen by chance,
    It also exists at every stage of the other processes of: egg, caterpillar, pupa, butterfly...

    How does an egg, which is a liquid, randomly create the larva?
    What is amazing is that the caterpillar is precisely programmed to perform all the same actions,
    Like moving, eating, hunting (if needed), and transferring all those actions to the pupa
    which the golem must perform in order to pass on the exact programming system
    (which are completely different from the programming he received from the egg).

    Are they poor and will not see?

  317. skeptical,

    "And how did it happen that, despite budgets for scientists, not a single study on this topic was published..."

    Say do you sometimes listen to the nonsense you speak? You insist that the moon inside is made of yellow cheese, and you are surprised that no research has been published on the subject? Say, man, is everything alright with you?!

    Thousands of studies have been published on the topic of the reincarnation of a butterfly, what has been published is only what has been found to be true!

    If they found that the larva turns into a liquid, they would publish it!

  318. skeptic,
    How do you know that a given system is irreducible? Do you think that an inability to explain the gradual formation of a given system at this moment proves that this system is not a discharge?

  319. bio,
    The question is not whether there was "evolution", but random evolution...


    I keep saying,
    I have no problem. The question is whether for all those who believe in "random evolution"
    can sleep peacefully, not knowing how the pupa turns into a butterfly (for example),

    And how did it happen that despite the budgets for the copy "for the scientists",
    No research has been published on this topic...

  320. rival.
    The argument is not stupid at all. Those who do not have a good answer to a question use insults as a substitute for answers.

    The question of inextricable complexity is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult questions against the argument of evolution. Sometimes it is possible to prove discharges and sometimes it is probably not possible for the time being. So when it is impossible to give a blasphemy claim or a philosophizing claim (a philosophizing claim: we don't have proof that the complexity is unpacked but it can be blah blah blah of one kind or it can be blah blah of the second kind or it can be blah blah of the third kind). Claims "it could be blah blah" without detailed proof is not a real answer, it is an answer of religious faith (belief in evolution as a religion that does not require providing evidence and giving answers). A real answer is to actually point to discharges.

  321. Raphael, skeptical, etc. I don't know what the argument is about. After all, according to evolution, even a princess can in principle develop from part of a lump of feces (a collection of bacteria). This is because according to evolution, a bacteria-like single-celled organism gradually developed into a princess (human). which is not much different from the claim that a butterfly evolved from a liquid.

    Regarding the probabilities - the low probability exists even in evolution no less than the origin of life. For example: the sonar of the whales is coded with at least a number of genes. Let's say for the sake of simplification 4-5. Assuming that the chances of each part appearing in a mutation are one in a billion (and if you observe nature, you see that the chances are much lower), then the chances of developing 4-5 components at once (or in neutral accumulation) are close to 45^10. And as mentioned, the problem cannot be divided into parts, because there will be no benefit in one or two components. A difficult problem that is also faced in the professional literature. And those who are familiar with the creationist-evolutionary conflict have heard about it more than once and twice.

  322. Skeptical, since there are tens of thousands of articles and books on the subject of the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly, including photos and videos and illustrations of all possible stages, so it is likely that thousands of cocoons have already been opened, photographed and studied from all directions and in all stages. If there was an iota of truth in your ridiculous claim about the caterpillar turning into "liquid" we should have found at least one picture of this wonder.

    I don't need to go and do the experiment myself now, you make a stupid claim, do the experiment yourself and report back.

  323. someone

    You are wrong and wrong…
    It's clear to me that I'm upsetting everyone here,
    Because everyone belongs to one of the two opinions: "creationists" and "scientists"
    Therefore, I cancel all of them...

    Did you check my claims about turning the cocoon into a liquid
    And the fact that it doesn't turn into a liquid?
    (Remember, what I said, that I came across this news and did not check it)

    Everything you claim, that you did not find such a study...

    Maybe tell us
    How do "scientists" skip this very important step without checking it?

  324. Regarding the book, I don't assume that it was created randomly, but you assume that it was created randomly like that person and the fossils were created randomly.

  325. Miracles regarding fossils The explanation is simple - they were created randomly (anything can happen in an infinite universe). Regarding protein 40 acids if it is not formed randomly then how is it formed?

  326. Skeptic, you're not just annoying Eitan, you're annoying anyone with an iota of sense who reads your nonsense here.

    "If you're really looking for the truth... try checking my claims..."

    So we checked your claims as much as we could and found no trace of anything to back them up, you threw some stupid nonsense into the air that has no evidence anywhere and we're supposed to just accept it as truth because you said so? Do you call yourself a "skeptic"? Where is your skepticism? Have you ever heard that the core of the moon is made of yellow cheese, you don't even remember where, but it "fits your world view" so you just accept it as fact?

    You are just ridiculous.

  327. Strong,

    Again "if they want they will eat, if they don't want they won't eat".

    My world view is between the "creationists" and the "scientists",
    Because both perceptions are wrong...

    If you really seek the truth,
    And you are not here just to give reinforcements to the opinions you have today,

    Try to check my claims..

    If you have proof that my claims are wrong, I'd love for you to post it here…

    In the meantime, don't attack me personally, because it won't "take me down"...

  328. "skeptic"
    I am convinced that it is convenient for a believer to think that I am hostile to him and that the entire scientific establishment talks about him behind his back at parties.
    (I am not sure that you are a religious person, you may be trying to appear as such as a parodic imitation).
    Despite the fear and hostility, you did not answer my innocent questions:
    What reason do the commenters here have to give more weight to the "food for thought" you threw in than to the food for thought I threw in regarding the cheese moon?

    Good trip to me

  329. Strong,

    I have no doubt that I irritate you, and you are extremely hostile to me...

    I give food for thought here.

    "If they want they will eat, if they don't want they won't eat"...

  330. Oh well.. I have another 15 minutes of waiting..
    A "skeptic" did not make any claim, you just threw meaningless sentences into the air:
    "The cocoon has a liquid phase"
    "Even if there was indeed a "bang" it was not the cause of the creation of the universe"

    I guess there are many more claims in your portfolio
    Does anyone have a real reason to confront the claims you made?
    Did you provide any basis for the claims that would require reference?
    In the same way you could argue that the moon is made of cheese.
    I quoted two claims you made, is there any factual or conceptual basis behind them?
    It seems that the only proof you have is that you really, really want the claims to be true so as not to undermine your worldview (indeed, a skeptic..).
    What reason do the commenters here have to take your claims more seriously than the claim about the Gouda-Lunar theory (cheese moon).

  331. Strong

    Since I did not follow your views,
    and what scares you,

    I guess you won't want to dig deeper and check my claims,
    Because they may shake your faith...

    What is the connection between my nickname and what I write?
    Is this what bothers you or are you looking for ways to "get me down"?

  332. Raphael
    Regarding the book. You assume that a random process produced the book and therefore you say it is unlikely.
    I'll say it again - no one is saying that a protein of 40 amino acids evolved randomly. It's an invention of creationists, like the silly invention of skeptics with the golem. Maybe we should stop with these inventions?

  333. Response to commenters who confront a "skeptic"
    "I repeat that I came across this news a long time ago,
    I was surprised by her and accepted her for granted, because she fit in nicely with my worldview"
    This sentence is, more or less, the most concise definition of the question: What is the opposite of sufficiency?

    If anyone doubted that this was a troll, this is the proof.
    It is impossible for a person who knows how to read and write, and who has the cognitive ability to operate a computer and send a response online, not to understand the complete contrast between his nickname and the sentence he wrote.
    Most of the commenters here are smart people, some of them have academic knowledge and enter the site in order to keep up to date with scientific innovations and discuss the consequences in a matter-of-fact way.
    It is not possible for a troll, who obviously reacts in order to excite the crowd to emotional reactions and then ignores any attempt at a real discussion, will succeed in tricking so many commenters (I admit that I am one of them) and make them have a discussion that he clearly has no interest in discussing.
    I don't know if the commenter's purpose is to sneer at creationists and people who let faith erase their ability to think or if he really believes in his delusions but is unwilling to discuss them.
    The point is that this is a troll and there is no point or purpose in discussing with him.

  334. Raphael,

    Regarding the finality of the universe...
    You remind me of a conversation I had a long time ago,
    With a scientist who became a penitent.

    I told him that in my opinion life was created by aliens.
    He answered "So who created the aliens"?
    I answered him "I don't know, does that mean there are no aliens"?

    In my opinion
    The universe is infinite in terms of our knowledge to perceive it.
    This means that any claim about the amount of matter in the universe is only a hypothesis.

    As I have already written,
    I reject the big bang theory.
    Even if there was indeed a "bang" it was not the cause of the creation of the universe.

    I have an original theory for the formation of matter in the universe,
    I won't go into it at this point…

  335. Raphael
    You may be right. I think not, by the way, because before the living man was created, what is in the earlier stages must be food for something else...

    But - let's assume you're right. We know that this is not what happened here, because there are fossils that show what happened in the past. We see in the fossils the slow development of the species that exist today.

  336. someone,

    I repeat that I came across this news a long time ago,
    I was surprised by her and accepted her for granted, because she fit in nicely with my worldview.

    I haven't researched it. That makes sense to me.
    And it is very strange to me that "scientists" have not thoroughly investigated the matter...

    I'll give you a simple idea how to verify this:
    Take a simple camera that is capable of taking a picture at any given time.

    Place it in front of the cocoon, and behind the cocoon you will place a lamp.
    (The cocoon will be between the lamp and the camera)
    When you notice a physical change in the cocoon, let the camera shoot…

    You are guaranteed to be surprised…

  337. Raphael, I don't think there are many scientists who think that the amount of matter in our universe is infinite... (there is a theory that talks about the possibility of infinite universes, but so far there is no proof of this), so for now the theory of evolution (including chemical evolution that created the first replicating molecule) is the theory The best we have today.

  338. Nissim I started toying a bit with your idea of ​​an infinite universe where everything that is not zero probability does happen. If so, in one of the infinite replications of the earth there is one place where all the atoms that make up a person happened to gather and then evolution is no longer needed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  339. Skeptical again that I ask you, what is the source of the information you rely on regarding the larva turning into a liquid at some point in its life? How did that source find out? With the help of cameras inserted into the cocoon? Is it by another method? And why do you trust his words so blindly?

    I'd love your answer, or it's confidential.

  340. Miracles, I don't understand why you go round and round. Are you saying there is no such number because it has happened before? See what I replied to Ethan. Are you saying that because the universe is infinite then anything can happen and therefore there are now infinite miracles in the universe that everyone is commenting on the scientist site? Beautiful. I didn't think about that.
    Regarding the protein, I admit that I did not understand what you wrote.

  341. K.

    I went to the second link you provided (BBC)
    He claims that a simple and continuous photo will not be taken,
    To follow the amazing phenomenon of the change that the cocoon (for example) goes through...

    Isn't it absurd that "scientists" still haven't seen fit to do this?
    Isn't this a "cover-up" of the truth to hide it from the public?

  342. Raphael

    You are simply wrong (and so is Bio, on whom you rely), but the only way it seems to me that you can understand this is if you try to do the math yourself. So step by step (in one sentence in the response as you like) please show me your calculation that shows the probability of the formation of life on Earth.

  343. Raphael
    I explained that Bio's explanation was wrong. Don't you want us to move on?

    There are several errors there:
    1. Probability only works forward and I explained why. Not clear? So ask….
    2. No one claims that a protein of 40 amino acids evolved randomly. It's a straw man argument by a group that doesn't understand the issue, and it's time to stop repeating the mantra...
    3. In an infinite universe, which no one claims ours is necessarily not like that (except your friends... notice the guideline here?), everything whose probability is not exactly 0 must happen. And more than that - it must happen an infinite number of times!

    I asked me questions, and you didn't pay attention to the answers. do you agree with me

  344. K. Regarding the probability see what Bio wrote below. Besides, the fact that you claim there is no other better explanation does not mean that we have no choice but to believe that life arose by chance.

  345. Raphael,
    Regarding your question: "Is it plausible or improbable to assume that life on Earth arose by chance."

    Since we know that there is life on Earth and that this life has undergone dramatic changes from a relatively simple single-celled state to the rich variety we know today, and since we know about the existence of many relatively simple mechanisms in which chemical compounds act on other chemical compounds to create additional chemical compounds according to Mainly stochastic legality which depends on factors such as the concentrations of the components, temperature, the presence of other substances used as natural catalysts and other properties that give preference to the occurrence of certain processes over others (due to electric charge, acidity level, water repulsion/attraction relations, spatial structural arrangement, etc.), Processes that characterize each and every component in the bodies of all organisms, not only is this probable, but this is the most probable of all the explanations proposed so far (importing life from another place only changes the source but does not fundamentally change the likelihood).
    Is this indeed what happened? we don't know All we know is that all the evidence points towards a development that combines randomness (which creates variation) and a process of selection, most of which is not random, which gives priority only to some of the individuals, thus constituting an engine of changes, a sort of search engine for life-giving solutions in different environments. This mechanism is sufficient even if the starting point is extremely simple. We do not know such a starting point, but surely our ignorance cannot be evidence against it (especially when it does not seem to be contrary to the laws we already know that govern the universe we know). In addition, it is easy to understand that it should have existed if the theory of evolution regarding common descent is indeed true (and all the evidence does point to this explanation as the correct explanation).
    Is it possible to really calculate the chances of the first "live" appearance? No. As of this moment, and to the best of my knowledge - no. We still lack essential information for such a calculation. Perhaps later on we will know how to find the relevant information and then it will be possible to calculate this real chance. It is possible that we will find some way for life to form from inanimate matter under natural conditions (even if in a laboratory) and then even if we probably won't be able to know if this is exactly how life began, we can at least get serious confirmation about the programming. At the moment, we don't have those, just a large collection of bits and pieces that all point to the existence of some primordial life, based on organic matter, in a world full of explosive organic compounds, remarkably similar to most (if not all) of the building blocks that make up us and the rest of us. the organisms.
    To this day I have heard several alternative "explanations" that are supported by a lot of faith and logic. Personally, I am interested in science.

  346. skeptical,
    You chose a nickname that is the antithesis of the way you express yourself. During the metamorphosis process in fully metamorphosed animals (such as butterflies and beetles for example) dramatic changes do occur in the body structure of the larva, including the disassembly and reassembly of entire tissues, but at the same time there are tissues that do not disintegrate fully, especially the tracheal system (the system of air transport tubes) which actually undergo relatively small changes. You can continue to be sure of your perception, but you are welcome to try something else and that is to learn from what the scientists have to offer on the subject after examining it and not based on gut feelings, intuitions or any other kind of deep inner conviction that sometimes is true and many times turns out to be complete nonsense.
    You are welcome to read here for example:
    or this article:
    And this video:
    Although this is still far from giving a complete answer regarding the order of events in every detail in the metamorphosis process, it definitely shows that what you wrote is probably not really relevant. You are of course welcome to present other evidence if you know of it, I would be happy to learn.

  347. Skeptical, I'm just curious, where did you hear the claim about the liquid caterpillar, who told you that? And what makes you believe him with such a high level of confidence?

    Who told you these things, was it the angel Gabriel? Or maybe God himself appeared before you and told you this wonderful knowledge?

    Not really, what is the source of the information? Tell me I also want to know.

  348. Raphael
    The universe is apparently infinite, so probability has no meaning. Everything whose probability is not zero will happen, and will happen an infinite number of times.

    But - I'm talking about the argument for random protein formation. Someone may have created it, a non-protein based life form.

    This eliminates a skeptic's convoluted argument, and that's why I mentioned the possibility.

  349. someone

    I really have no interest in convincing anyone...

    I provide food for thought. Those who want to check should check.

    I'm confident enough in my perception, so I don't need it...

  350. Skeptical, I'm really starting to think that Ethan is right and you're doing the opposite here and basically making fun of everyone here... Your messages sound too delusional to be true.

    If it's so simple why don't you prove it yourself? Get yourself a box with silkworms, feed them and wait for them to turn into pupae, and at the right moment cut them with a knife and reveal the miraculous event to the whole world! Or are you also part of the conspiracy?

  351. Miracles simply, this meteorite does not give a solution to the question of the probability of the formation of life by chance, so why go there? Does it increase your probability or decrease it?

  352. incidentally,

    It should be emphasized that
    Because the transition between egg, larva, pupa, occurs in a huge number of life types.

    The likelihood that all these wonderful processes,
    were able to develop simultaneously and randomly, is an absurdity of absurdities...

  353. someone,

    There is a conspiracy between the "repenters" and the "scientists"
    Deny the theory of "intelligent evolution".

    Therefore, every stream from the above wants the truth not to be revealed,
    So that they continue to hold their opinions.

    Take into account that the truth can be discovered in a very simple photograph,
    Even without penetrating into the "cocoon", and contenting ourselves with taking pictures in sequence from the outside...

  354. Raphael
    Why did I get carried away? Do you think this is less likely than any other explanation? If so - an explanation and rationale.

  355. Nissim is drifting! Did life come with a meteorite from space? And if so, how were they created there? Enough with the walking round and round.

  356. Bio
    What about the next idea? Life began on another planet, not on the basis of proteins, but on the basis of something much, much simpler, which developed under conditions we can't even imagine. Creatures but synthesized proteins and sent them here.

  357. Skeptical, doesn't it seem to you that if things were really as you claim, websites of converts would be full of pictures and videos of this wonderful miracle? Do you need NASA laboratories to take pupae at the appropriate stage to cut them with a knife and display their contents?

    Have you asked yourself what the source of this claim is and why there is not even a single photograph of this wonder, not even on the websites where this claim is made? Are they also trying to hide the truth?

  358. skeptical
    I have to admit that this is the first time I have come across a person who claims that the golem goes through a liquid phase..
    I have to understand where you are getting this from.
    There are so many straw arguments of creationists that have been finely honed on the web and at the very least require a lot of words to refute them.
    You could have followed each of these arguments and at least allowed the respondents to sharpen their tongues a bit and you chose a liquid caterpillar?!
    Do you have any proof? A crumb of vision? something?

    And on another topic, do fish eggs have a melted cheese phase?

  359. Raphael
    My thesis assumes that the conditions for evolution are met - reproduction, variation, competition and inheritance. I mean she assumes there is life.

    But, I was definitely referring to the formation of life. Let's start with the "statistical argument". Let's start by understanding the concepts. "Statistics" talks about investigation and understanding of events that happened. I rolled a die a million times, how many times did I get a 6? "Probability" talks about the future - if I throw a die now, what is the chance that I will get a 6? And if you want to talk about the past, you use Bayes' law - there was a murder of a woman, her husband is known to be a mecca man, the probability that a husband will kill his wife is one in a million, but - given that a woman was murdered, and her husband was a mecca man, then the probability that he did kill her is one in a hundred. See sentence or. third'. Simpson to illustrate this case.

    Now - what is the probability of the formation of a "first replicator" in a random way? Pay attention - not "first cell"!! You have to take several theories, and check which one is more likely. There are several interesting theories, which can be compared according to Bayes' law, but there is a problem - it is quite possible that we haven't thought of the right theory yet. For example - the famous Fred Hoyle wrote about the Ha'arein that life in general started somewhere else in space and arrived here on a meteorite. Today we know that living things can indeed survive a penetration of the Earth from space!

    Note the following example. Take a cup of salt, each grain a different color, and throw it into the air. Answer me - what is the probability of getting exactly the dispersion we have now?

    Raphael - Just because we don't know anything today, it doesn't follow that God did it. In the past, God was blamed for solar eclipses, earthquakes, drought and disease. Even today there are those who pray when a person is sick, even though studies have shown that it actually interferes...

  360. rival,

    I suppose that turning the cocoon into a liquid,
    Made at a certain stage, and is not in a liquid state from the beginning of the cocoon formation.

    For a real test, a tiny camera has to be inserted
    which will take many pictures at fixed time intervals…

    I'm just amazed "that the scientists" who receive budgets of many millions of dollars,
    No research has been published on this important topic.

    In any case, turning the pupa into a butterfly is an amazing process,
    It is imperative to investigate him in depth..

  361. Your opponent's link is cut in the middle, you just have to search Google images: "inside a Pupa".

    I don't see any liquid inside either, probably another conspiracy of the disbelieving scientists who try to hide the truth from everyone and fake all the pictures on the internet.


  362. The opponent of the phenomenon of personal attacks on this site against those who are unable to answer him with a simple answer is already known to me and you can say that I am already used to it.
    To remind you, we are now dealing with the question of whether or not it is probable that life on Earth arose by chance.

  363. Skeptical, we won't confuse you with the facts, but here are pictures of open pupae, I can't see any liquid inside:…0…1ac.1.64.img..0.4.416.8qnvWwpHnX4#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=inside+a+Pupa

    (Apparently all these photos were faked by the same infidel scientists who also faked the photos of the moon landing)

  364. I'm starting to get the feeling that a skeptic is simply mocking the views of Stephen Colbert-style creationists.

  365. someone,

    I have no interest in convincing you.
    I found out a long time ago,
    And I received it as a surprise, without any interest in investigating further.
    It fits with the opinion I have had for many years on this subject.

    I assume that "science" long ago had to publish the truth, and the test is simple.

    My conclusion: the truth is unpleasant for those who discovered it, and decided to hide it...

    how did they say "If they want they will eat, if they don't want they won't eat..."

  366. Skeptical, instead of setting "what if" conditions for me, let's just prove and examine together how acceptable and correct your "proof" is.

  367. No Rafael, I'm not trying to divert the discussion. I'm just clearly showing what a nonsensical person you are. On the one hand, you claim that a certain thing could not be created by itself because it is too complex, but on the other hand, you insist that something a billion times more complex did create by itself.

    You are irrational, like all other creationists.

  368. Ethan according to your logic if I find a book with a story of Snow White and the seven dwarfs in the middle of the desert then I can assume that it was created by chance and the proof - it happened. It is a fact that the book is placed in front of me.

  369. Rival Of course I have an answer to your question but I won't answer you because its whole purpose is to divert the topic of the discussion.

  370. The truth is that calculating the probability of a living cell is very easy.
    The chance is 1
    In fact, the probability of anything happening is 1
    If, on the other hand, we try to calculate the probability of life on other stars, this is equivalent to trying to calculate the probability that a person riding in front of us on a motorcycle without a helmet has friends who also ride without a helmet.
    If we could scan all the planets that correspond to Earth in the galaxy, we would be able to calculate with a fair degree of certainty, the chance of life on a planet like DHA (and only such).
    (On the other hand, I suppose that when we have this ability, there won't be many people left asking such questions).
    There is an attempt here by creationists that exists in every discussion that has to do with evolution in any way, to make a false claim, to claim that it is a claim of scientists who accept the theory of evolution and then refute this straw argument and claim that they won the debate.
    No scientist claims that the first replicator was a primitive cell or a long amino acid. No one really knows what the first replicator or replicators were.
    What creationists refuse to acknowledge is that you cannot answer a question with an answer that is actually a non-scientific question that cannot be true and cannot even be false and think that ends the discussion. At least not as part of a scientific discussion.

  371. Skeptical, there is no such theory "the theory of random evolution".

    This is an invention of creationists, so there is nothing to refute here.

    (As you were told before, evolution is not random, the argument that it is "yes random" is wrong and false)

  372. Raphael, as far as I know it is not possible to make such a calculation because you don't know what the first replicating molecule from which it all started looked like, and you don't know how many proteins and how many amino acids it was made of, so it's all a matter of wild speculation.

    And again I ask you to answer, what is the chance that an omnipotent entity that created everything, was created by itself?

    You probably have an answer for that.

  373. Raphael and Rival. In principle, the chance of a functional polypeptide evolving in the ancient ocean does tend to zero. All the more so a minimal cell or even just a translation system. We know this for several reasons:

    a) The most minimal proteins in nature require quite a few amino acids.
    b) There is a limit below which amino acids cannot be subtracted from those proteins.
    c) The possible number of sequences for a small protein of 200 ha is 200^20. This is such a large number that even if the entire universe were full of amino acids we would need well over the age of the universe to create a functional sequence.

    Even the article the opponent brought does not answer the question. Because he is dealing with Gadiri's replicator, which is actually a protein (in living cells, proteins do not replicate at all). And here he agrees that the chance of creating one duplicate is one in 40^10, and the chance of finding the complementary sequence is one in 40^10. In other words, most likely it will not duplicate even once. Which completely refutes the article. And it is not for nothing that the article concludes with ignorance.

  374. Yariv, I can send you many more links on this topic.
    The question remains - is it statistically probable that the simplest living cell imaginable would be created by chance or not.

  375. Rival, I suggest you search on Google. This number exists and is infinitely lower than one part of all particles in the visible universe.

  376. Raphael,

    No one can calculate for you the chances of a living cell forming, not even the most experienced biologist. There are too many free parameters and too many values ​​that we do not know their value in the ancient conditions of the Earth, we can only estimate and assume that this is what happened.

    And if your answer is "God created", then you must explain the chances of its creation. You will not be able to avoid this question - how was the first creator who created everything created.

  377. Hello miracles,

    As part of your master's thesis, did you also calculate the chance of one living cell forming by chance?
    And if so, have you also calculated the chance that that single living cell that was created by chance will also be allowed to develop under conditions of natural selection for a mosquito?
    I would appreciate it if you could share this information with us.
    I ask that this time you try to stay on top of things and I don't say this sarcastically.

  378. Easy to verify? So please verify. You make a claim that sounds delusional, the burden of proof is on you.

    Give a link to a scientific website or a scientific article where it is written, get you some cocoon (of the silkworm for example) cut it with a knife and you will see that all the contents are liquid that has spilled out, show me one video or one picture that proves this nonsense.

    In the meantime, you just threw a stupid claim into the air that has no evidence anywhere, and I should just accept it as a fact, and more than that - explain it to you?

    You got a little confused. You claimed something, give a reference to the things, and not from sites of converts but from a site that deals with science.

  379. Miracles,

    Not only are you untrustworthy and unresponsive,
    you are rude
    A person on a self-respecting site, they wouldn't let you write at all...

  380. skeptical
    And I think you're stupid, yet I try to correct what you write, because there are other readers who might think you're saying something right.

    Total - you are not able to answer me. After all, I have not written a single thing that I am not sure is true.

  381. "How do you explain that, randomly, a butterfly develops from a cocoon, after the cocoon turns into a liquid?"

    And how do you explain that the moon's core is made of yellow cheese huh??!

    Or in other words, first you provide one proof from a real scientific study of this idiotic nonsense you wrote and what it is based on, then I will address it. You remind me of a stupid claim I read in the book of Repentance according to which some rabbi knew how to tell a senior ophthalmologist that the eye has "70 membranes" and the doctor of course fell out of his chair in astonishment... But when I researched the issue a little more deeply I discovered that there is no mention of this stupid nonsense in the medical/biological literature. The source of this retarded nonsense is that one of the rabbis saw that the letter E gives the number 70 in gematria, and from this he concluded in his stupidity that the eye contains 70 membranes...

    So I assume that the nonsense you wrote here about a cocoon turning into liquid is something exactly like that, stupid nonsense that one of the rabbis threw out in one of his lectures and since then all the believers have been repeating it like a bunch of idiots without bothering to check if it's even true.

  382. someone,

    how do you explain randomly
    Does a cocooned butterfly develop, after the cocoon turns into a liquid?

    How does the environment create it?

  383. Skeptical, evolution is not random, how many times does it have to be explained to you? It is directed and determined by the living environment in which the animals are raised, this process is far from random.

  384. skeptical
    Random evolution created the wonderful gray wolf. Deliberate evolution created the shih-tzu, the pug and many other monsters.

    This is an example of natural selection being better than intentional selection. After that there is a not short explanation (partly mathematical) and was the subject of my master's thesis.

    Of course, this does not prove that there is no deliberate hand, but in the interpretation there is no evidence that there is such a thing.

  385. In other words,

    Anyone who believes that God exists,
    Believe in evolution.

    You just have to take into account that not everyone who believes in God must believe
    That the story of creation according to the book of Genesis is a true story...

  386. The media,
    Stop deceiving the public...

    Surely there was an evolution...
    Anyone who knows that the earth has existed for more than 5000 years,
    Know that life developed gradually, i.e. in evolution.

    The big question: is this evolution random,
    That is: according to Darwin's theory,
    Or is it evolution directed by a superhuman intelligence...

  387. "61% percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement that the universe was created in a big bang and that humans evolved from creatures that preceded them"

    The truth is that this survey quite surprises me, I thought that the percentage of people who accept the theory of evolution is much lower.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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