Comprehensive coverage

A country haunted by demons XNUMX - Science is not a program as you request. Answer regarding Avital

The scientific consensus is not created as in religion by dictation or as in the Knesset by the majority of votes of whoever is more persuasive. An accepted theory is one that is able to predict the results of experiments. A theory that fails to do so is relegated to the footnotes of science. A reply to Dr. Gabi Avital, the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, for his reservations about climate science and evolution

Cell division and embryo formation. Illustration: British WELCOME Foundation
Cell division and embryo formation. As for Avital, it looks like a miracle. Illustration: British WELCOME Foundation

Towards the beginning of the school year, Shalom Yerushalmi brings peace to the site NRG (and in Maariv newspaper) an interview with the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, Dr. Gabi Avital. Dr. Avital is an expert in the field of aeronautics from the Technion, so I will not argue with him about what he said about the indispensability of the F-35 fighter jet. But in the fields I know as someone who is interested in science, and has been the owner and editor of the science site for 13 years, I was shocked to hear how a person with a PhD, who is supposed to be enlightened, expresses such dark opinions.
What is scientific consensus?

Before I go into more detail into the areas that Dr. Avital denies - evolution and global warming, I will try to explain what scientific consensus is, and why science is not a new type of religion as Dr. Avital tries to attribute to it (the religion of evolution).

Science is not a religion and there is no one who dictates a dogma and determines the consensus. Science is also not politics and decisions are not made because a charismatic scientist managed to convince his friends. Scientists reach a consensus when they stop arguing after the facts have decided to discredit or favor the theory they advocate.. When a question is asked for the first time, for example - what will happen if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases or how will animals adapt if we change a certain element of their environment - there may be theories Much about cause and effect. For a while, each idea goes through many experiments and also many repetitions of the experiments that are done because the scientists know that the prestige and honor goes to those who find the right answer (and all the others go into the footnotes in the history of science).
Almost all hypotheses fall by the wayside during the testing period because only one will be able to answer the questions correctly without leaving holes. Wrong theories are often thrown out.

Before the construction of the current particle accelerator in Geneva (LHC), more than thirty basic hypotheses in physics were published, which today all predict the same results for the experiments conducted in particle bombardment at the intensities that exist to this day, however, when the accelerator reaches its full capacity and certain particles are discovered, only one theory out of all of these will prove to be correct And all the rest will be thrown away. If more than one of the theories correctly predict the results of the experiments at the higher energy levels, it is a sign that more experiments need to be planned and perhaps in an extreme case even an additional accelerator to reach a decision.

Therefore, when Avital claims in the article that "the biggest problem is the origin of life and the origin of the universe" and explains that only a god can discover this, he tries to revive hypotheses that have already been refuted. Science does not accept a theory according to the criterion of whether it assumes Avital's opinion or does not assume his opinion. He writes "(those who do not believe in God) cannot explain the transition between inanimate and living. Those who believe in God cannot accept that the marvelous structure of the cell, the organism, developed randomly over millions of years. This is the basis of the debate between me and a scientist who does not believe."

The answer is that the transition between inanimate and living is a separate science from the science of evolution. For fifty years, experiments have been conducted to create life artificially by imitating the atmosphere, the materials in the earth, the state of the sun's radiation and the energy provided by lightning. Of course, it is impossible to pretend to compete in the billion years, and in the area of ​​all the surface of the earth in the experiment conducted by nature, until in the end life was created. These experiments proved at least one thing, that the amino acids and other basic substances necessary for life (such as lipids) existed on the ancient earth. A billion years over such a vast area to create a single molecule that would survive and reproduce itself from the abundant nutrients means trillions upon trillions of opportunities. As soon as this happened once, life took over the entire planet and over time from the first replicating molecule that was more similar to today's RNA, the complex DNA was formed and with the help of the lipids what later became the cell was also formed. Wealth as we know it has only existed for about 600 million years in what is known as the Cambrian explosion but it is commonly assumed that their seed was sown in the first billion years of the earth's existence. A scientist who deals with mathematics should be able to understand the statistical significance of the chance of life forming.

His description of Darwin's theory (only the strong survived) is also wrong, if it was true, how come there are very weak creatures? Those who fit survive, that is, those who fit their environment, even a little more than their brothers - will survive better than them. This can be with the help of camouflage, parasitism, the ability to run or fly or any other attribute, not necessarily physical strength.

The issue of intermediate vertebrae is also nonsense because it was precisely in the evolution of man that so many intermediate species were discovered between the split from our common ancestor and the chimpanzee and modern man, and also between other systems such as between certain terrestrial mammals and marine mammals, between dinosaurs and birds and between amphibians and reptiles. To say that if humans exist then why did monkeys stay is like asking if everyone moves to Tel Aviv how did residents stay in Haifa? The answer - not everyone passes. In addition, in evolution it is a little more complex because each family of a particular animal or plant is a possible parent of a new species, if it happened to be isolated while the rest of the population remained unisolated and kept its existing species or several families that dispersed to different parts of the world - for example the New World monkeys and African monkeys that diverged from a common ancestor.

Creationists like Avital also like to do what is called in English CHERRY PICKING - taking a quote from a scientist and taking it out of context. If Prof. Crick thought it was a miracle he would not have received a Nobel Prize because after a miracle there is no point in researching. I believe that the key word is "almost" meaning that on the face of it it looks like a miracle but it is not. Moreover, evolution has many independent pieces of evidence such as DNA differences that show that humans and chimpanzees differ by a few percentages (2-3%) only slightly more than the variation within the human race. There was a time at the beginning of the 20th century when it was believed that Mendel's theory of heredity, which was rediscovered at that time, contradicted Darwin's theory, and later it turned out that it fits into it like a glove and explains why there is variation between siblings which in time translates into variation between species. Moreover, the decoding of DNA did not disprove evolution either (and it could easily do so if it were true). Evolution has survived all these scientific revolutions and it will also survive epigenetics and the lateral transfer of genes - two features that diversify future generations and therefore add fuel to the fire of evolution, and certainly do not contradict it.

The consensus regarding evolution is absolute, in fact all attempts by Christian organizations such as Discovery - which promotes the alleged science of intelligent design to show lists of scientists who oppose evolution amount to religious scientists from irrelevant fields such as mathematics, economics, etc. There are almost no biologists who believe in creationism.

The consensus in the field of the environment is a little less strong, but it is also counted Over 95% of relevant scientists (as of 2009). In fact, the fact that the earth is warming can be confirmed in different ways - measuring temperatures at meteorological stations is only one of them, there is observation by satellites in a variety of wavelengths, each of which shows different features of nature, and they all converge in one direction - climate changes, shifting vegetation zones, melting glaciers at the poles And on the tops of the mountains, Abden lakes, Midbor and more.

Some explain all of this as a cyclical phenomenon of nature, but nature does not work in a vacuum, it does not change the temperature whenever it wants but when there is a factor that is a catalyst for these changes. This factor is carbon dioxide - the gas emitted from wholesale burning of fuels that has not been equaled in the entire history of the earth in at least the last 700 million years. This gas and other gases such as methane trap the energy returned from the Earth and prevent it from going out into space. This in turn causes the earth to warm, and the fear is that the process has a positive feedback, meaning that due to the warming, conditions are created that will cause even faster warming in the future.
As early as last May 2009, 2,600 residents of Carteret Island - about 100 km from Bougainville near the coast of Papua New Guinea - were forced to abandon their island and move to Bougainville because the rising sea level meant that at high tide the areas used for fruit and vegetable plantations were covered. Before, the water did not reach this height and it was possible to grow food there for the residents of the not so small island, but being an atoll - a coral island, its height above sea level is barely 1.70 meters.
The ten hottest years in history were all from 1998 to the present day. Yes - even 2009, at the end of which a huge cold wave occurred in all of North America for about a month, is considered one of the ten warmest years in history. And all this when the sun, whose warming and cooling corresponded to the graph of temperature changes on the earth in the last hundreds of years, has not warmed up since the XNUMXs and is even cooling down a little, and yet, the earth is warming up. Does Mr. Avital think that he is not seen when he hides his eyes and claims that there is no warming?
With all due respect to other opinions, the school students who are the children of all of us should first be taught the scientific consensus, those who want to disagree with it can do so in talkbacks and not in a science class. Otherwise in a generation we will not have curious researchers but only conspiracy seekers.
More on the subject of global warming
Evolution - the scientific aspect
Evolution - the social aspect

185 תגובות

  1. Avi Cohen
    Yes…. But - the natural cycle of the earth is such that we should be cooling now.
    In addition - the theory says that the amount of CO2 that the person emits is so and so, and the measurements are close to the theory.

    To say that the huge amount of CO2 that man emits has no effect is an extremely unusual claim. Such a claim should be supported by very strong evidence.
    This is not the case.

  2. There is no dispute about global warming or the fact that a high concentration of CO2 creates a greenhouse effect.
    But there is a debate among scientists that is legitimate and based on research and solid theories as to whether the cause of global warming is the CO2 emitted by man or is it just part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth and the contribution of man is marginal.

  3. Dor, the fact that the robot can theoretically replicate itself only means that it was designed to imitate life, not that it is alive. If anything, life can be defined as a biological agent that has metabolism and can reproduce itself or give birth to offspring sexually (mixing of genes from both parents). It is clear that if the definition is stretched then it is not relevant.

  4. Your words are terribly shallow.
    What is "life as we understand it"? Who are those mysterious "we"? Does a bacterium have consciousness? If not - then why ("we"?) call him Chaidak?
    And can you divide the animals into those that have consciousness and those that lack it - even though all the facts (some of which I demonstrated in the links in the previous response) show that there is a sequence of development here?
    To Michael Rothschild for response 42

    To say that life was not created in the way of creation (or any other way) you have to define life. If something is called living-thin it does not mean that it meets the definition of life. In any case, Mr. Avi Blizovsky did not bring any definition (or I missed it) of life that can answer all of us what life is and therefore begin to analyze its origin or even refer to it.

    In any case, the approach to life can be divided into two:
    1. Life is a type of structure that manages dynamic relations with the environment and reproduces itself. Such a definition is not good because you can look at a robot that knows how to build itself as a living thing
    2. Life is the ability to feel yourself. At this point many creatures fall down because we don't know if bacteria is a robot or alive. But what to do? That's what there is.

  5. I, who studied in a religious school and was born into a religious family, I will never forget in the 9th grade or so in Torah class when the teacher said something about God's abilities, and I told the teacher it was not possible and I received a ringing slap, to this day it amuses me that as a XNUMX-year-old boy I made the teacher come to a situation That he had nothing to say, and therefore he used violence, as wiser men said "violence is the downfall of the incompetent"... In any case, that day I left school.

  6. Year:
    In general - no one categorically rules out anything - but as long as none of the thousands of scientists working on the subject has been able to find even one evidence of extraterrestrial visits - there is no reason to decide that they actually visited and that the laws of nature known to us are incorrect.
    I assume you've heard of the SETI project.
    This is a high-investment project that has been operating for many years with the aim of discovering evidence - if not of alien visits here - unfortunately - of the very existence of aliens.
    So far brought up pottery in his hand.
    I want to remind you of some facts.
    1. It is very easy to see UFOs. In fact - the greater your ignorance - the easier it will be for you to see UFOs. The reason for this is of course the definition of the word UFO - unidentified object. The less you know - the less objects you will identify and define more objects as UFOs.
    2. Even if a technique is discovered that allows movement at a speed exceeding the speed of light (and no technique of this type has yet been discovered. Some people have speculated that it makes sense to search for something by warping space - but this is still wild speculation, much more than wormholes) - still not This will make the light itself move faster. Because this is so - even the knowledge of our existence could not reach alien civilizations that are at a great distance from us (and those that are very close to us - we would probably find out).

    As I said - nothing can be completely ruled out. Not even the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. But is this a reason to accept the faith of those who worship that monster? In my opinion, no way.

  7. Machal, Avi, Gali
    To all those who deny with absolute certainty the evidence of sightings of unfamiliar aircraft,
    What is your infinite confidence based on?
    On what basis are you so sure that you and your supporters are smarter, more intelligent and more knowledgeable about the theory than those who testified about observations.
    Twice in the past I have asked all the deniers to give a good reason why it is necessary to cancel the testimony of Kent Arnold, the American pilot who coined the phrase flying saucer in 1947. A technical professional who has never been accused of hallucinations, drugs, alcoholism, schizophrenia. No one responded to my request.
    Like a man of iron sense, don't you have an answer?
    As far as the evidence is concerned, the negation of the abamim is weaker than the claim of their existence: the negation is based on the lack of evidence, the positive is based on evidence. Most of them are worthless, but some are apparently good.
    The negation through scientific knowledge -
    True, but weak.
    The theory of relativity is not the end of scientific knowledge.
    Even if we only consider its limitations, it does not rule out the possibility of contact with distant planets. If beings with higher technology than ours have evolved, does it make good sense to rule out the possibility that they sent spaceships designed to fly for hundreds of years? The theory of relativity does not rule out the possibility of inventing a driving force that would double and quadruple the speed of an aircraft. The claim made by Macal, that they have nothing to look for here, is wrong. What do each of us have to comment on this site? Curiosity is the mother of all inquiry.
    Even if it seems absurd to us today to send spaceships that will bring data after hundreds of years, it is not impossible that the creatures on distant planets have a life span not necessarily 30 years like the people of the Tanakh period or 80 years like us today. Even on earth there are animals whose lifespan is double and triple that of a human. Maybe those creatures live for hundreds of years? Regarding them, spacecraft that will send information after hundreds of years is of the order of magnitude of one lifetime. Information collected after hundreds of years of flight will reach its sender after a few weeks.
    The spacecraft also do not have to be manned. They can be robotic.
    Paradoxically, those who deny the possibility of clouds in the sky of the country, who think they rely on scientific knowledge,
    Trust in fact only on faith assessments.

  8. to Ofer,
    We don't know if aliens exist because there has never been a signal from them. They may or may not exist. It is likely that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere. It is unlikely that we are alone in the universe. The question is what form of life exists? I was talking about the debate between creationists and evolutionists. And in this debate, the hypothesis of the aliens who could have brought the first life stones is raised. raising all kinds of hypotheses.
    The evolutionists' hypothesis regarding the origin of life is the following:
    The doctrine of Spontaneous Generation holds that organic life could and does arise from inorganic matter.
    This is the accepted hypothesis of evolutionists regarding the origin of life and my father wrote it in his article above I think. He wrote about the creation of the first artificial cell.
    Gillian. The answer is intended so that you who respond will learn to speak. The respondents sometimes think that they are allowed everything and literally everything. So once I wanted to tell you and commenters like you that not everything is allowed. Scared of my language and very good. Commenters often use much worse language, but they think they are allowed everything because they are commenting...

  9. "my sweetheart"??? Gali Weinstein, what kind of language is this? And let me ignore the rest of the bullshit you spread on the site. As I already wrote to you in response to your "article" (since you can't really call this article an article), you have no idea what you're talking about, in any field. In case you thought otherwise - you are no less religious than Eli Yishai, only that you have your own private beliefs, which are no less delusional than his.

  10. All Torah followers believe that the Second Torah is false. At least one of the Oferim couple thinks the debate is pointless. Still, a theory that manages to explain how the opposing (false, of course) theory manages to survive, has a good chance of convincing.
    How, if at all, can Darwinism explain the formation and survival of the creationist false theory?
    How is it possible, if at all, to explain through intelligent design the existence and strengthening of the false Darwinist theory?
    And why does no one treat Tigger, my cat, who was orphaned at the age of zero and drank only cow's milk and yet buries his bowels in the sand as strictly as if he was raised by cats?

  11. Ofer
    Leave it in your life, you will not be able to solve this problem. When you become a real moose then you will understand.
    And now seriously, there is no point in asking questions as if they are smart, and finding out in the end that you have reached a dead end and find quite a few people there and that each one of them is smarter than you.
    Go watch Avatar or something.

  12. According to the responses of both Avi (89) and Michael (39), it can be determined that there is agreement on the existence of aliens.
    For the purpose of the next step in my arguments (116), I will attach the response of "Teshuva Le Ofer"
    I will mainly refer to the connecting part, which concerns the possible technological gap between the advanced entity and ours.
    "Reply to Ofer" brings Kurzweil's book, and expresses his opinion that technology is indeed advancing at an exponential rate and within a few decades we will be able to create entire worlds by ourselves...(127)
    If so, it turns out that what seems technologically inapplicable to us may be possible with superior technology, and even if there is a reservation to Kurzweil's words (Michael 133), this is only an exaggeration, and not a negation of their content.
    Precisely the sipa in the words of Gali Weinstein (92) is very interesting.
    As far as I understood from her words, it is possible to launch events in such a way that both possibilities can exist together, that is, the arrival of aliens who plant seeds of life, and then the beginning of an evolutionary process.
    So, the dispute as it stands at this point between creationists and evolution is:
    What are the seeds of life?

    To summarize what has been said and

    I would like to go one step further to the conclusions stated

  13. Michael,
    I don't think you're right. I can explain it to you by arguing from the philosophy of science but it would take me a whole article. There is a very interesting explanation that stands behind the arguments of the creationists and it will explain to you why Avital "does not actually do" and does not mobilize anything.
    The problem is the very appointment of a person like Dr. Avital to the position of Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education. A person with liberal and open views should be appointed to such a position.

  14. A serious question for creationists and Darwinists alike.
    The property of domestic cats to hide their secretions is undoubtedly innate. Can such a complex behavioral trait be coded in the nucleic acids?

  15. jelly:
    It is definitely recruitment because the conclusions he asks us to draw he does not support at all with scientific tools (and it is clear that he cannot support them with scientific tools either).
    Therefore it is clear that for him - scientific reasons are not important - only the conclusion is important (which he probably really believes in - although I'm not sure about this either, but let's say).
    That is why he mobilizes the scientific tools for the purpose of convincing and not because he recognizes their importance.

  16. Michael,
    Avital does not maliciously recruit anything. He truly believes that his - religious - belief is the scientific truth. His speech is typical of what are called conservatives. The "conservatives" are the opposite of the liberals both intellectually and politically. This is prominent in the USA and England (eg the abortion law). But even here, when the Likud came to power, it placed people with conservative views in key positions, and this includes the appointment of Dr. Avital.

  17. Ofer:

    Did you not notice that I am expressing my opinion on Talmudic thinking?
    Really interesting how you didn't notice!
    Maybe because I did not express my opinion on Talmudic thinking and only quoted it?
    I left the work of drawing conclusions to the reader.
    It is true that I guessed what he would conclude - but I was right about that - the fact is that you also drew the same conclusions.

    By the way - what conclusions do you draw fromThis link?

  18. Mizpatel:
    Avital clearly (although not intentionally) betrays his motivation and it is completely unscientific.
    From that moment he recruits (yes! literally! recruits! because he is engaged in a war in which what is important is not finding out the truth but instilling his faith!) what he thinks will succeed in confusing people in the best way.
    Evolution - as you said at the beginning of your words and as you denied at the end - gives a good answer to the question that Avital copied from creationists who are wiser than him.
    This is a question that has been discussed here many times and even received the name "inextricable complexity".
    Of course he didn't bother to read the excellent answers given to this question.
    You say that it is hard for you to swallow the fact that small changes that give an advantage will create a big change that seems inextricable to the untrained eye - but is it easy for you to swallow hundreds of millions and even billions of years? Do you know that in a large part of the mechanisms presented by various creationists as having inextricable complexity even the intermediate stages were found?

    In my opinion - the appointment of Avital to the position of chief scientist is a terrible shame, and even more terrible is the fact that the protests of the scientists who were rightly shocked by his words were not heeded.

  19. to Ofrim,
    Look, it's a little funny that the owner of a website about UFOs (Gillian) would wonder how Dr. Avital got a doctorate. This is appropriate for a book dealing with paradoxes in science.
    I see that Dr. Avital releases a lot of emotions in people here.
    And Gali releases a lot of emotions in the respondents. I miss the commenter under the nickname Ehud or A. Ben Ner The two great commanders of the scientist that for some reason they did not appear here. I miss his/her downs. 🙂
    And to the substance of the matter.
    Daniel, you are one hundred percent right. And this is especially so if you let the waves speak... 🙂 🙁 🙂 …

  20. Avi (Blizovsky) - I have no complaints about censorship on your website. I think the discussion is balanced and open. And thank you for that.
    Indeed, an interesting article and an equally interesting discussion among the commenters. Cheers!

  21. Avi,

    What happens when your enlightened website renounces its symbols and flags, isn't that bankruptcy?
    The funniest thing is that you claim that the ultra-Orthodox world is dark, but how would you define your actions?

    "Your response is awaiting confirmation", a funny response to cover the cultural pluralism you represent..

  22. Machel

    Did you notice that you're having an argument with Ma'ale Gera and a horseshoe multiplier? 🙂 (Good thing you didn't try to convince him that the rabbit is his relative).

  23. Ofer the
    You should have changed your name to Eyal!
    You are much more mature than the original Ofer.

  24. The original Ofer Hello, my name is also Ofer and so the name remains in the name field in the comments function. No one is greedy for him. For the purpose of the discussion here, I changed the name to Ofer. So that there are no misunderstandings.

  25. Michael,

    Sorry, I didn't notice the pearls coming out of your mouth.
    I saw that you express your opinion on Talmudic thinking, as you call it. (144)
    You really managed to amuse me.
    It's about the same as expressing my opinion and saying about Picasso that he is a good painter.
    Even if this is true, my answer is completely false.
    Oh, my smart student.

  26. Lagley,

    That's how I remember it, but I didn't know they were clapping.
    If so, how would you explain the strange phenomenon?
    I can't find anything other than her, except cruelty for her name, don't you think so?

  27. to Ofer,
    That's right... after "the rest of the scorpions teamed up to put him back in the fire" they stand around clapping
    And sing songs of praise to the creator of the fire and the scorpions that were burned!

  28. jelly,

    Is there any truth in the phenomenon attributed to scorpions trapped in a fire trap, that if one managed to escape and escape, the other scorpions will join forces to bring him back to burn in it, provided he does not escape?

  29. my sweetheart,
    I am not at all surprised how Dr. Avital received a doctorate. He simply designed a pilotless UFO or a more advanced F-type UFO or perhaps other aeronautical components. He is a doctor in aeronautics and not in biology. And I'm even more not surprised how he got to the senior position in which he sits.
    Richard Dawkins had a friend, an American philosopher named Daniel Dennatt. He once told Dawkins that if he ever fell on hard times, he could make a million dollars a week if he wrote a book entitled: "Confessions of an Ex-Darwinian."
    And that's how you get to be a chief scientist in the Ministry of Education. If you write a book entitled, "The computer is a technological curse and Darwin was not and was not created", Eli Yishai recommends that you become the president of the country. And if not the president, then the minister of education.
    And as for private beliefs. UFO landing is one of the most private and also the most unfounded beliefs.

  30. Well, father - what exactly do you expect from a person who says that the computer is a "technological curse"? I'm just wondering how the above got a doctor's degree and even more, how he got to the senior position he currently holds. To show you that there are also doctors and professors who talk nonsense, and a lot of it.

    And at the same time, I'm sorry to say, you also often sin in exactly the same points you raise against Dr. Avital and you also often feed on your private beliefs, and not exactly on science.

  31. Nice, someone liked to note, and wrote comments on my behalf.
    I went to bed around 23:30, so any comment later than that time is not mine.

  32. Michael

    I am indeed a secular physicist. To Ofer, I'm sorry but I'm not on your side. Again he says: I do not consider the question of whether the origin of life is artificial (God, aliens) or not such an interesting question. In my opinion there are two separate questions: one is the origin of life. I have no idea what it is. And the second question, from the moment primitive life was created, what was the mechanism that promoted it from then on to the state we see today. Evolution gives an answer to the second question and not the first. In physics, by the way, there is a similar situation: we know that there was a big bang, but it is not clear what its origin was. This does not prevent cosmology from being a very serious and leading field of science, especially in recent years. I say again, there is no meeting between faith and science. When you do science, only the experimental results that confirm or disprove the theory are relevant and nothing else.

    Michael, my PhD supervisor was a physicist (religious by the way), a member of the Academy of Sciences. I don't see anyone from the academy as "zeroes". I do think that in Israel we have a tendency to argue and react very aggressively to any nonsense and to involve political opinions and science as if they are related. Regarding Avital's words that you quoted. It points to a real problem: the gradual development of something complicated that is useful in its final form but hard to see how it gives an advantage in the interim. I understand the existing evolutionary explanation which says that the process is such that at every intermediate stage there is even a small advantage. I think he is weak. I certainly do not agree with Avital that the necessary derived conclusion is an artificial intervention (he calls it God and according to his belief it is on "our" side). I just think there is a hole here that is not yet well understood. You have to admit it, shrug your shoulders and close it. By the way, I agree with other commenters that the amount of defects in our bodies is strong supporting evidence for evolution.

  33. Ofer, I'm with you. Everyone is entrenched in their position.
    Perhaps, as the columnist says, schoolchildren should first be taught the scientific consensus.
    But how do you do it? How can children be separated from the high-rating practical stories and make them like the Science Channel?

  34. Of course, the concept of "evolution" can be replaced by any other scientific concept that contradicts their religious belief

  35. How can it be that the religious skeptics are so skeptical about evolution, by the way no less than any other skeptical scientist and person, they demand proofs (that exist) and experiments (that exist) but are not skeptical about their own religious faith. I think this is the deep gap that exists between a believer and an unbeliever and therefore these debates are hopeless and useless.

  36. Anyone who argues with evolution for religious reasons should hear what the Sages had to say on the subject:

    About abiogenesis:
    Lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold.

    Enjoyed? Read about other evolution topics:
    The Erod can be created as a result of pairing a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Hona Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake that was wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out from among them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.
    is funny?
    That's not all, of course:
    In tractate Avot, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX, it is written: "The tiger is bold-faced because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of the lioness. Because during the heat of the lions, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face."
    And how about that?

    And in order not to detract from the Jerusalem Talmud, I will also quote from his words:
    In the Jerusalem Talmud it is known to say that: once every seven years God changes his world, the louse after seven years turns into a scorpion, a male hyena turns into a female and a mountain mouse turns into a wild boar (Shabbat chapter XNUMX page XNUMX column XNUMX / XNUMX)
    In conclusion - Talmudic thinking would have been very good for stand-up comedy if it hadn't been so funny that the stand-up artist himself would have laid down laughing.

  37. The truth is that the evidence for planning is the engines that exist in our bodies. This video, for example, shows the ATP synthase turbine

    The question arises - is a binding engine created or not? Can this engine be compared to a snowflake or beach strips?

    In addition, how can evolution be disproved? A scientific theory must offer an attempt to disprove it.

  38. To the "answer to Ofer":
    Also in the section of "Who created the creator?" We have already visited this discussion many times and Ofer is simply comfortable to ignore.
    I definitely think there is a point in discussing with religious people and I do it a lot on this site, but many times there comes a moment when it becomes clear to you that you are talking to the wall and I don't think you should continue beyond this point.

    By the way - do you believe Mitseftal is a secular physicist? We said that doubt is at the heart of science and I cast great doubt on this claim.

  39. Why am I not speaking out if even the supporters of the theory of evolution find reservations in it.
    I guess Mr. Mitzpatel is not among the worshipers of the local synagogue, yet he does not hesitate to tell the truth.
    And to be precise in his language, she is before you (119),
    "Regarding evolution. I am personally agnostic (as a secular physicist I have no other choice), I clearly believe in natural selection, but to say that evolution does not have problems and holes is to do an injustice to the truth."

    By the way, I believe that the deviation between the popular opinion here, that there are indeed aliens, and an advanced entity that does not say its name, is minimal.
    In my opinion the example I gave with the ant (116) is also valid for your question.

    In addition, if the claim that our actions are condemned to positive/negative, then there must be some interaction between the retarded being (ours) and the one above us.
    If so, it is clear that that entity, if it wanted to be exiled, would indeed have done so.
    It remains now to assume one of two possibilities. Either she doesn't exist, or she doesn't want to be exiled.
    If it does not exist, the discussion is over. If it exists, then it can present us with a false representation, provided that we tread on it to no avail. (which is also the Torah opinion)
    Therefore, you will agree with me that it is not my job to "excuse" non-dependence on a theory such as natural selection, when even within the academy itself it is disputed.

  40. Hi Michal and thanks for the reference, I brought the examples only to show him that all the evidence shows the complete opposite of intelligent design (and it doesn't matter if it's God or "aliens"), in all his previous messages he tries to point to the possibility that aliens with advanced technology created or We were created (I also think he means God in the end, it's pretty clear) I just showed him that reality shows that we were created as a result of slow development, and there is nothing in our bodies that indicates intelligent planning with thought in mind first, that was what I meant.

    In my opinion, there is actually a point in these debates and dialogue with people of faith, only in this way, through education and putting the facts in front of their eyes, is there a chance to make them change their minds, we must not raise our hands in our hearts (lest we wake up one day to Israel like Iran or Sudan or Saudi Arabia)

    Of course, one cannot avoid the question of who created that alien who is so intelligent and has such advanced technology? After all, the claim that he has always existed just like that is a stupid claim and makes no sense, if a block of rock in space had to have a creator to exist then surely and surely an alien so sophisticated and intelligent cannot be created by itself or always exist, it makes no sense.

  41. In general - from reading the entire interview, a picture emerges of a person who belongs to the Middle Ages at best. I recommend everyone to read. After reading this you no longer need to read my father's article.

  42. For those who haven't read the interview with Avital (and also for Mitsaftal who probably based his arguments on the assumption that no one will) - here is a quote from part of the interview with that great scientist:

    What is your conclusion?
    "God created man. There is no other situation. I'll give you an example, you see animals that have methods of hunting, defense and subsistence. Famous zoologists say that reptiles jumped from tree to tree and then grew wings. Does that make sense to you? This is zoology. There is no such thing even on a mathematical level. Is this what should be accepted as Torah? No one will reproduce in any laboratory experiment any development of a wing. You can't reproduce the development of new species either. These are not Newton's physical laws that you can go back and verify."

  43. To the "answer to Ofer":
    In fact - your words (which have merit) do not refer to anything from Ofer's words.
    It is very likely that he really believes in God and the Torah, but he never said so.
    In fact, we didn't get to the debate about religion at all (although I really think his motivations are religious) and the entire discussion remained in the area of ​​the question of whether or not there was an intelligent creator.
    After all, he could claim that there is an intelligent creator who does not demand anything from us. His words so far (that is, until he tried to answer you and clearly disclosed his motives) did not refer to the demands of that Creator.

    In general - the discussion with him has so far not justified going into details on any subject.
    I also raised the claim that an intelligent creator is possible in principle, but this is not what happened (end of response 108).
    If he had started arguing with me about the claim that this is not what it was, I would have answered him (among other things) by including what you said about the fossils.
    I would ask him what reason could an intelligent creator have to do everything so that we cannot believe in his existence?
    Why should he plant thousands of finds that testify to evolution in the thick of the earth?
    Of course I would also add the genetic evidence to this - but he is not serious and we have not reached these points.

    By the way, I think Ray Kurzweil exaggerates his predictions but that is not the point here.

    But leave.
    I'm tired of him and have no interest in dealing with him.
    For my part, let him continue to stew in his nonsense and accusations.

  44. Ofer, I just wanted to be sure, is your reference to the response I gave you before? (You can get lost with this thread...)

    Listen, you can't compare objects that we create with our hands (like chairs) that are created from scratch, to living and breathing creatures that pass their traits to their offspring from generation to generation, and that are acted upon by processes of natural selection and environmental pressure that causes only the fittest to survive and others to die, it's like comparing tomatoes to cucumbers, these Two completely different and incomparable things (well then what are both vegetables, the main thing is that you understand the meaning)

    There are many examples in nature of complex products that are created without any intelligent planning, one beautiful example is from Dawkinsoff's book. There and looking at the beach one might mistakenly think that some clever intelligent planner labored and arranged the stones in this beautiful way. But in truth, the ones who arranged these beautiful patterns are the sea waves that for decades repeatedly hit the pebbles and stones and created this separation, heavy stones hardly moved, and small stones were pushed further towards the shore.

    Another beautiful example is the spectacular patterns of the snowflakes, do you think that while billions of snowflakes fall from the sky and crystallize to them then some invisible God walks through them with his invisible hands and molds them into their beautiful shape?

    Do a Google search on "complexity out of simplicity" and you will understand that things that seem very complex do not always indicate planning and can also be created on their own as part of physical processes and natural forces.

  45. Mizpatel:
    I didn't mean to start a debate about global warming here.
    Obviously factual - many climate scientists (In fact the vast majority of them) disagree with you but my question to you is: Do you think Avital's claim that there will be no warming because God is watching over us is scientific? Is this an acceptable statement in your view to be uttered by a scientist in his role as "Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education"?
    This is his first statement on the subject. The fact that he later started reading all kinds of things to obscure what he said at the beginning does not change anything in this matter.

    Evolution has not received a status of supremacy despite its many confirmations and despite the fact that there is no finding that disproves it.
    Doubt is at the core of scientific inquiry and no one claims anything against doubts.
    All scientists attack evolution all the time but they do it by experiments, observations and raising questions. Neither by fumes nor by idle talk of competing theories.

    I understand that in your opinion - the Academy of Sciences is also full of zeroes and conspirators who attacked Avital just like that.

  46. It was worth the wait.
    Finally an objective answer.
    Indeed, the issue of reward and punishment is infinitely complicated.
    There is no doubt that the claim is radical without any proportion.
    It's easy to understand that if you see a chair, then someone built it.
    Apparently the aforementioned will now be busy building more chairs....
    But from this to the claim that the carpenter has nothing else to do but check every moment who is sitting on the chair, and punish the one who got a little dirty because of mud sticking to his pants? Hard.
    If you ask me, I would prefer at this stage to present the arguments supporting/contradicting the existence of an intelligent being, since you will agree with me that if the conclusion is that there is none, then there is no point in discussing reward and punishment.

  47. I just want to understand, Ofer, are you claiming that using the negative for emphasis indicates linguistic weakness?
    Because then it's even a little entertaining, that you resent linguistic poverty in light of diversity?
    Here's a link to the file found on this site, straight from Google:
    This is the website of the Ministry of Education (I hope this is enough evidence for you of this diverse element) Here is the file:
    (The link is long so I allowed myself to shorten it)
    I recommend page 3 towards the end very enlightening about the use of negation.

    Ofer but Naa demands Naa maintains, you get alarmed when they don't argue with you in a way that seems respectable to you, but you allow yourself to behave in such a way.
    Your very indignation about the linguistic scarcity that is shown when using a double negative in my eyes really brings you closer to a place where there is no longer any value in responding, I wonder if you are reading anything, I wonder if there is any point in my response to you.
    I say this to point out that the very response to your questions or claims has a measure of niceness, at least in my opinion.
    It doesn't seem like you think so or respect those arguing with you.

  48. Machel There is no reason for you to put any effort into this lead. Attacking your "linguistic poverty" is his attempt to hide the emptiness of his mind. The attempt failed.

  49. Ofer Hey, your intention is completely clear to me, and indeed I think there is a certain logic in your words, for example I recently finished reading Kurzweil's fascinating book "The Singularity is Near":

    And it is absolutely clear to me that technology is indeed advancing at an exponential rate and within a few decades we will be able to create entire worlds ourselves, perhaps as part of a computer simulation, perhaps physically on a planet we will create.... The question is, after we create these worlds, do we really want the animals and creatures they created there to worship us, bow down to us and follow the countless laws given to them? We have such advanced technology, and what we lack in life is that such inferior creatures that we created would pray to us and ask us to forgive them for their sins? Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?

    This is the first point to think about, I don't see any sense in it, even if we were really created by very intelligent beings (we'll call them "aliens" for that matter) with much more advanced and sophisticated technology than ours, who may have even managed to break the light speed barrier and get here through What a wormhole they created in space - do you really think that what they lack in life is for us to worship them like a bunch of robots and pray to them in synagogues? That you cut our unfortunate and helpless babies a piece of the bulbul, and that we refrain from traveling on Shabbat or eating meat with milk? (I wonder why a steak full of fat is okay)

    Another thing, all the evidence shows that we developed gradually and were not created as we are, excavations and many fossils clearly show that there was a development from single-celled animals to the complex mammals and vertebrates that exist today, if these highly technological aliens had created us all at once then we should have found the same animals in every layer of soil that is excavated, new or old, but this is not what happens in the field.

    In addition to that our body is full of endless defects from various defects (see how many people have died to this day from diseases and epidemics, see how many babies are born every year with deformities and with serious diseases) this is really not a body that I would expect to see from such sophisticated aliens who supposedly created us, any beginner biologist will tell you That our body is one complete and unwieldy bedrack that looks as if it was built patchwork, this is not how a body looks like that was built from scratch with first thought and reason.

    I would love to hear your response on the subject (and also Micha-El's opinion)

  50. Michael Shalom

    There is no serious discussion about the causes of global warming. This is really a religion. As a physicist I don't see any serious evidence. No scientist of world caliber who deals with it. The numbers don't add up with simple finger calculations (at best 5% of carbon emissions are man-made). These are extremely complex systems. If we know that it is impossible to predict weather, why would we be able to predict an even more complicated system? And the hockey stick theory with all the cheating it involved was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Honestly, it seems ridiculous to me to think that we have such control over nature. It seems to me more like a trend that is convenient for politicians to catch a ride on (they are experts in this) than an established scientific theory. Certainly not at a level that would force humanity to lower its energy and food consumption and guide human technology in the next century.

    I am not making claims about evolution. On the contrary, in my opinion, it has amazing things that are certainly true, but it also has loopholes that are not well explained in my opinion. However, she got a status because Mahsan doubts her. It's bad for me. Good science is science that is valid all the time and not one that is invalidated. There are no sacred cows. In addition, I don't think it is proven at the same level as, for example, special relativity, the theory of tectonic plates or the operation of the blood circulation. I have a problem with presenting evolution as a truth with the same degree of certainty to children. We must teach her but also explain what the problematic points are.

    In addition, Avital also said very true things that go well with scientific excellence. Today there is an attempt to give up acquiring knowledge in the education system on the grounds that knowledge is marginal and to develop other skills such as creativity. This is a serious mistake that we will regret a lot. You acquired a knowledge base and the practice of mastering it is the basis for obtaining skill in any human profession.

    I do not agree with the mixing of faith and science he created in the interview. In my opinion they are not contradictory (I have met many excellent religious scientists) but they are not related either. Faith is related to emotion, personal preference and morality, while science is the study of truth and nothing else.

    I hope I have clarified myself

  51. Ofer:
    Please remind me what you wrote about mud?
    You are also wrong about the linguistic matter, but I finished the conversation with you.

  52. Of course I understood, but that is no excuse for such linguistic poverty.
    Emphasizing meaning?! Where are you from?

  53. Ofer:
    You got my point.
    It is also completely clear in the way I wrote it and the word "no", in this case, does not change the meaning here but rather emphasizes it.

  54. Michael Shalom,

    I read your response (117), and unfortunately I haven't delved into it yet.

    I saw you wrote
    "What is clear to me is that there is no serious evidence - neither of the existence of an intelligent creator nor of alien visits here."

    I guess you meant to
    What is clear to me is that there is no serious evidence - of the existence of an intelligent creator or of alien visits here.

    (the words do not change the meaning)

  55. Mizpatel:

    Avital does not participate in the scientific discussion on any of the topics.
    He said that global warming will not cause any harm because..."God promised".
    Yes! That's what he said!
    There is a legitimate debate about global warming and in this debate the vast majority of scientists think differently than you, but the side you support also argues using scientific reasoning.
    Not so Dr. Avital.
    In fact, he is an apostate in the scientific method and does not deserve the title of "scientist".

    The same goes for evolution.
    There may be things in it that you don't understand.
    Of these things, there are certainly some that other people actually do understand.
    Among them - so I assume - are also things that no one has yet cracked to the end.
    But what there is not is a competing scientific theory.
    There simply is not!
    So what did Dr. Avital mean when he said that if people insist on teaching evolution he will make sure that the students are also exposed to other theories? (And it is well known: when you study a theory - you also study what is not known about it - after all, this is the starting point for future research!).

  56. To Mr. Blizovsky, bless you for the amazing website, but I do not agree with your criticism of Dr. Avital. There is no dispute that there are climate changes on Earth. But to say that it has been proven that they are due to human action is inaccurate and probably not true. Unfortunately, the religion (I don't know another name) of reducing carbon emissions pushes aside the more important struggles of preserving the quality of the environment, preventing air pollution and more which have a real and proven impact on our lives. Moreover, I do not understand how it is possible to treat the issue seriously after the climategate affair. Scientists with a different ideology from the study of truth are not scientists but preachers.

    Regarding evolution. I am personally agnostic (as a secular physicist I have no other choice), I clearly believe in natural selection, but to say that evolution does not have problems and holes is to do an injustice to the truth. Unfortunately, my every attempt to find out facts about problematic points has failed for the simple reason: the whole debate is presented as a war between creationists and evolutionists. There is again an ideology that leads to hiding information and not science. I'm interested in how complex organs, proteins, molecules with interactions between them like RNA and DNA were formed and I can't find good and satisfactory explanations so that the holes exist. I read the interview with Dr. Avital: he does not oppose evolution and does not rule it out, but says that it is not the only and proven explanation beyond any doubt. I think your attack is misplaced

  57. Machel
    It would be silly of me to say that the machine has awareness. But for others it is not a problem, according to Asimov's 'I am a robot'.
    But from here on the discussion will turn into a postmodernist debate.
    There is no debate between us about the definition of the ads. But I did use it in a slightly different way in the previous response in order to point out that there is awareness of yourself and there is awareness of the environment and there is a difference between the two.

    Thanks for the link, I'll read it later.

  58. In my opinion, we do not sin in being overly opinionated because we do not pretend to know what we do not know and what we do know are things that we can test and confirm through experiment.
    I don't know what you mean when you say that someone evolved even slightly before us. what is little Is 40,000 years a little? A baby born today is more or less the same as a baby born 40,000 years ago and yet it is able to understand all of our contemporary antecedents.
    In general - I cringe when I hear phrases like "non-linear" in this kind of context. Are you able to define what you mean by this phrase and what it has to do with linearity? Do you know what linearity is?

    Anyway, I don't know where you are going.
    What is clear to me is that there is no serious evidence - neither of the existence of an intelligent creator nor of alien visits here.
    It is also clear to me, as I said, that to argue that in order to create the first life there had to be life even before the first life was created, is to talk nonsense.

  59. If I continue the prevailing assumption here, the likelihood is that there are aliens somewhere.
    One of the questions that bothers me is how advanced this intelligent being is than ours.
    Knowing that scientific progress does not proceed in a linear fashion, if this entity developed even slightly before us, the gap between us and them is enormous, and cannot be bridged.

    In my imagination I analogically compare the gap between an ant and a human. What happens if Hela stuck a pitchfork in rotten soil, and four holes were created. The ant can "admire" the speed of execution, or the matching between the holes, but will not interpret this as landing until the next hay pick up. The reason is that she does not see a pitchfork as a means of lifting hay, it is outside her world of concepts.

    Moreover, the ant may question "the creator of the holes", because according to her method, holes in a square shape and close to each other will provide a much more effective solution "to the housing problem".

    My question is, aren't we "sinning" by being overly opinionated, knowing that not everything is understandable to us?

  60. Anonymous (112):
    The fact that it creates such an impression does not mean that it is the case.
    There are also many machines that respond to the environment. Are you claiming that they are also "ads"?
    If so - you simply use the word differently from the way I use it.
    Here, by the way, is a (fictional but possible) story about a machine that seems much more "aware" than bacteria:

  61. Ofer:
    I do not throw mud at anyone who treats others with the seriousness and respect they deserve, reads their words carefully without distorting them and does not make statements about subjects that he does not understand.
    Therefore all that is needed to avoid my attack is to act honestly and fairly.

    Regarding the choice of the topic of the next discussion - I see no need to do so.
    I respond when I have something to say and ask whoever I think can teach me something.

  62. Gali - What do you mean by thousands of proofs? As far as I know Temer, evidence was found that a new catalytic activity can be created. And this is the main claim of evolution. In addition - I do not know of a scientist who showed that natural processes can create a self-replicating organism. Do you have any evidence for these claims?

  63. Machel
    The very fact that the plants and bacteria react to their environment creates the impression that they are aware of the environment (but not of themselves). A much more complex organism, such as a reasonable hamster, is much more aware of its environment.
    And as the awareness of the organism's environment develops, so does its self-awareness. and not vice versa,
    Because being aware of yourself is understandable to you through experience with your environment. Without the environment would you be aware of yourself?

  64. Michael Shalom,

    I would love to continue the dialogue, but let's agree now "without mud".
    There are several topics that require incandescence.
    I leave it to you to choose the first topic.

  65. Anonymous (107):
    In my opinion, not every living being can be defined as "conscious".
    I think that bacteria and plants are essentially unconscious.
    By the way - what about viruses? Do you think they are aware?
    As far as I interpret the word "awareness" or "consciousness" these are qualities that characterize only creatures with a central nervous system and not even all of them.
    A conscious being is a being that is able, among other things, to create a mental picture of the world for itself, and this is something that bacteria or plants (or other creatures that lack a central nervous system) cannot do.

    That is why I also think that abortion before the central nervous system has developed cannot be considered murder and that research on embryonic stem cells is a legitimate and moral thing.

  66. Yes, from #Kel I also saw this fascinating experiment (Discovery Channel) the squares disappear immediately when the monkey (or the tested person) clicks on the first square, and they really succeeded in the experiment much better than humans both in accuracy and speed of execution.

  67. Ofer:
    Nowhere did I say that proactive communication with the aliens was doomed to failure.
    Such a connection is indeed a matter of a long time because every message in every direction needs many years to pass from one side to the other, but there is nothing in principle that prevents it and I certainly did not claim that there is.

    There is still no solid evidence for any of the hypotheses regarding the origin of the organic materials on Earth.
    They could have formed on Earth and they could have formed elsewhere.
    What is clear to any scientist is that they were created by a natural process and without the aid of a guiding hand.
    What every reasonable person knows - even if he is not a scientist - is that the claim that an intelligent creator (who is obviously alive) is necessary for the creation of life is a claim that includes an internal contradiction because if the intelligent creator is alive then the fact that he produces living beings does not solve the question of the origin of life.

    And we know that intelligent creation is possible.
    We ourselves are trying to do this.
    The question, therefore, is not whether intelligent creation is possible but whether it actually occurred and to this question it is quite clear that the answer is negative (and it is also clear, as I said, that even if it is positive it is not the answer to the question of the origin of life).

  68. In my opinion, 'awareness' exists in every living organism. And what I mean - the 'awareness' is actually a process that causes the creature to perform some action - based on a previous action that was performed. And the word 'action' refers to all types of activity (thinking, running, writing, etc.).
    And since every living organism is also an active organism, from this in my opinion, that organism has consciousness.

    The difference is in the complexity of the ads. In jellyfish, for example, consciousness is probably not as complex as in humans. For example, jellyfish do not have a brain and most actions are carried out through electric currents that pass through their bodies.
    In humans, in addition to electric currents, there are also processes at a high level of complexity and much higher than electric currents, such as blood circulation, the ability to breathe... and thus awareness has also developed to be extremely complex.
    Jellyfish, in my opinion, do not dream, but a creature that is even a bit more complex with blood circulation, is capable of dreaming.

  69. Indeed, I know the story of the crows and the traffic light.
    I assume you also met in an experiment that shows that chimpanzees do much better than humans in an experiment in which Ben projects squares with numbers on the screen and within a fraction of a second the numbers are turned off and the subject has to point to the squares in the order of the numbers that appeared in them. It is really not possible to compare the performance of the chimpanzee to the performance of the human in this test. They are just much, much better at it.
    If you read my article on the origin of language (mentioned at the end of response 41) you will know what I think is one of our essential advantages over other animals.
    There are a few more but most humans don't even imagine how close we are to animals.

  70. Michael Shalom.
    Despite your laudable 'war' on human ignorance I am afraid to tell you that in the end you will lose.
    Most people are not interested (and probably cannot either) in understanding the question of what, but rather the why.

  71. Hi mi#kal thanks for the clarification, I missed it. Thanks for reminding me of the fascinating experiment with the crows and the stones, I also saw it a long time ago on TV but forgot about it. You know there are also the crows who put nuts at the intersection when the traffic light is red, wait for the cars to pass and crush them, then at the next red light they come and eat (and don't forget that their brain is maybe a fifth the size of ours and I think they don't even have a cerebral cortex...

  72. According to both my father's and Michael's answers, the presence of aliens is not exaggerated.
    The question that is currently on the table is their ability/willingness to establish a contract with us.
    Michael claims that the physical laws (speed) as we know them, do not allow them to know about our existence at all.
    In addition, our attempt to create proactive communication (radio waves) ended in failure. (39)
    I am qouting:
    "1. Distant aliens have no reason to come here. If the reason for their arrival is the human race, then this race existed for a very short time and information about its existence could not reach them before it was created and traveled all the way to them at a speed that does not exceed the speed of light.
    2. If the information about us reached them because of the radio broadcasts we broadcast, then the only ones who could hear about us are within a range of less than 150 light years - and that is the time needed just to know about our existence and even before they started the journey to us. Stars from which we could in principle both notice our existence and travel all the way here must be within a range of 70 light years from here and that - if they set off with the first radio signal ever transmitted and move at the speed of light."

    I saw Gali's response (92), which confirms the reality of materials whose origin is unknown to us.
    According to her, the popular belief is that these substances originate in outer space.
    I am qouting:
    "From the analysis of these data, it appears that quantities of life's compounds originate not on Earth but in outer space."
    In addition, it raises the common assumption of how they got here. a quote:
    "So, the question arises, how did they get to us? It is assumed that they arrived on Earth inside comets. Today it is believed that even the components of our atmosphere originate from compounds from outer space. The comet script may solve the problem of the appearance of life compounds under the conditions that prevailed when the Earth was in its early stages of development."

    In conclusion, I would cautiously say that the subject of mass transfer from place to place is still shrouded in fog. It is possible that the comet theory is correct, but it is equally possible to raise a possibility that is (yet) unknown to us.

  73. Opponent (94):
    I didn't mean to say that they pour water into a pipe but that they use their ability to raise the surface of the water to bring things that are floating on them closer to them.
    This is the third example in response 41.

  74. And let's not forget that the cerebral cortex of us humans is developed and about 3 times larger than that of chimpanzees, and despite this, see (in my previous message) what abilities they reach, including a certain level of self-awareness as proven in the described experiment.

  75. Ofer, you really are not doing your Jehovah (or whoever) too good a service with the cheap demagoguery, the logical leaps (which you call a sequence) and a basic lack of reading comprehension as you demonstrated in front of Michael.
    Unless you want to insist and keep making fun of yourself - maybe you should stop. Just a friendly tip.

  76. Ofer:
    My father got tired of you so he stopped answering you.
    I continue to answer you even though you are what is annoying?!
    If you have something to say - I'm ready to read.
    If all you have is teasing (and it seems so throughout most of your responses) then spare them from the rest of us.

  77. There is also a mirror that proves that apes also have at least a certain level of self-awareness, while playing they stain their foreheads with a stain of paint without them noticing it, and then put them in front of a mirror, you see that they immediately recognize themselves in the mirror and know how to clean the stain from the forehead by looking at their reflection in the mirror.

  78. Michael,

    I admit that I am not used to such blunt style.
    This discussion can be done in a slightly more civilized way, without all the mud and slime.
    You can disagree, criticize, contradict, but it's a long way from here to such a low style.

    By the way, I did not see the above phenomenon with my father, so I assume that you are "special" in this as well.

  79. I wanted to be comment number 90 but it didn't work out... 🙂
    The creationist argument about the origin of life remains largely a mystery. But still biochemists studied primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and the other building blocks of life. In particular, they studied how these could form and organize themselves into self-replicating units, forming the basis for the biochemistry of the cell. As we know, scientists today are engaged in astrochemical studies.
    From the analysis of these data it appears that quantities of life's compounds originate not on Earth but in outer space.
    So, the question arises, how did they get to us? It is assumed that they arrived on Earth inside comets. Today it is believed that even the components of our atmosphere originate from compounds from outer space. The comet scenario may solve the problem of the emergence of life compounds under the conditions that prevailed when the Earth was in its early stages of development.
    The creationists try to argue against evolution the following argument: science today cannot explain the origin of life. The claim is that if one day we discover that life has a non-evolutionary origin - someone immortal or aliens from another world brought us the first cells billions of years ago. Even then in the case of this strange scenario, from that moment when the aliens landed on our planet and "planted" the seeds of life in the "soil" of the earth, evolution began to operate until today and is supported by countless scientific studies.

  80. Hi Michal, I actually saw the experiment you described with the ping pong ball with monkeys on a television show on the Discovery Channel, the monkeys solved the problem easily (and much faster than 6-7 year old children) by taking a jug of water that was nearby and pouring the water into a pipe on so that the nut at the bottom floats up.

  81. Ofer:
    What does not make sense is "your logic".
    By the way - unlike you - I also have a life outside the site. In between I jump in to see if you've produced any more nonsense.

  82. Michael,

    It doesn't make sense, it took you almost half an hour to answer me, and to give such an answer?

    By the way, I'm glad to finally know something about which there are no unknown boundaries.

  83. Michael, I would send you the above message by email, but cannot find how to do it on this website.
    I wanted to say that the comments you are responding to here are truly excellent.

  84. Ofer:
    According to you in response 84, I agree.
    I'm really sure everyone else understood.
    It takes obsession combined with extreme irrationality not to understand.

    And according to you in response 86 - apparently unlike everyone else - you will never understand.
    In response 39 I said that something can exist in principle - does not mean that it exists.
    It's not meant to talk about anything other than the inference process you were trying to take.
    That's a statement I still stand by.

    I also still stand by the statement that I believe there are aliens.

    Also, I still stand behind the statement that I do not agree with the fact that an evolutionary process can allow the development of intelligent life outside the limits known to us and I have already explained to you that the origin of this statement stems from the fact that in my view there are no such limits - apart from the laws of logic. In other words - I do not recognize any limits beyond those set before us by the laws of logic and these laws do not rule out the evolution of an intelligent being and therefore there is no need to go beyond these limits to allow the evolution of an intelligent being and therefore - even in order to recognize the possibility of the development of intelligent life there is no need for me to recognize the possibility that something can develop beyond the limits known to me which are the limits of logic.

    It is also clear that there is no need for me to continue arguing with Kir.

  85. Michael,

    I suggest you stop here, you are really shooting yourself in the foot.

    After all, your answer in 39 was to my question in 10 and I quote:
    "Do you think that an evolutionary course can allow the development of intelligent life outside the limits known to us?"

    And you answered me in 39, and I quote:
    "Ofer: The fact that there is a possibility that something will exist does not mean that it exists.
    Many scientists think there are aliens and even intelligent aliens. I think so too."

    Now you're saying the complete opposite, so maybe you can put us in order a bit?

  86. And one more thing for those who really specialize without understanding:
    I do tend to believe in the existence of aliens.
    I only claim that this existence is not "outside the limits known to us"

  87. Michael,

    Unfortunately, I did not understand your excuse for the contradiction in your words.
    But, I'm sure everyone else will understand perfectly well.

  88. Ofer:
    You don't understand what you are being told.
    In the previous response I showed that the conclusions you draw from my father's words are incorrect. I did not say that my opinion on the first question you asked was my father's opinion.
    In the response you offer as contradictory - I expressed my personal opinion regarding your first question.

  89. Michael Shalom,

    Your answer is puzzling to me, because you already answered me in response 39 and I quote:

    "Ofer: The fact that there is a possibility that something will exist does not mean that it exists.
    Many scientists think there are aliens and even intelligent aliens. I think so too."
    Now you say the opposite and claim that your answer is "no".

    It follows that you are contradicting yourself from her and hers.
    So maybe you could explain to all of us the meaning of the contradiction in your words.

  90. I came to the conclusion that I am not capable of withstanding the Shin Bet interrogation under torture until I make a confession that there is a supreme metaphysical being. Attrition is not a method to prove anything but only to cause me harm so that I lose money and will not be able to submit work to my clients.
    There is no factor that shapes the universe. If there are aliens, and in this I agree that the answer is positive, they are not able to reach us and we are not able to reach them and therefore it is not relevant to our day-to-day life.

  91. Ofer:
    To your question - "Can an evolutionary process? In your opinion, an evolutionary process can allow the development of intelligent life outside the limits known to us?"
    My answer is "no" and this is for the simple reason that we do not recognize any limits other than those set by the laws of logic.

    The truth is that you got an answer to all your questions (most of which are nothing more than defiance in the style of "mother mother mother why are you not answering me?" or perhaps it is better, in this case to say "my father my father" instead of "mother mother mother").

    You must interpret the cessation of my father's reference not as a white flag of surrender but as a red flag raised in front of the snoozers.

  92. By the way, Eddie:
    Also a phrase like "Your position is Poperian - a fashionable position for the time, in my opinion." Draws all its strength from the consensus (which in the present case is contrary to the one you want to lean on but that is a marginal detail).
    Even if the consensus was the one you want to base your claim on - it would not detract from the correctness of my words and certainly the fact that the consensus is precisely the opinion I hold does not detract from its correctness.

  93. Avi,

    After you answered my questions (10,12,17,19,21,25)
    Disappearing and also disappearing, is this waving a white flag?

  94. Eddie:
    In response 69 you are just waving names and taking people's words out of context - as all postmodernists have always done.
    Read, for example, a quote from the entry describing Kuhn in Wikipedia:

    Freeman Dyson has quoted Kuhn as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!",[5] referring to the relativism that some philosophers have developed based on his work.

    When you say that the theory should be "acceptable" you contradict your own statement. I remind you that you also said that "acceptability" (consensus) is not a criterion.

    There is no connection between the term "acceptable and accepted" and the phrase "in plain language" that you propose to describe this situation - the phrase "proven".
    The link between the two seems to me to be a jumble of words whose entire function is to confuse. The same goes for the phrase "coherent and reasonable".
    And what about the continuation of your words - "and definitely successful from an experimental point of view"? Is there no return to Popper here?

    I have never claimed that a theory is considered scientific just because it has not yet been proven wrong. What kind of demagoguery is this?! A theory can be considered scientific even if it has clearly been proven wrong and it can be considered unscientific even if it has not been proven wrong.
    The criterion for scientificity is the possibility - at least the theoretical one - to test the theory experimentally.
    The failure of the theory in the experiment does not make it unscientific. On the contrary - he confirms its scientificity. He just dismisses it as a correct description of reality.
    On the other hand - a theory that cannot be confronted with reality is not a scientific theory - and it is clear why. Such a theory simply does not relate to reality in any way that we can discern.

    There is a contradiction between the term "scientific theory" and the term "proven".
    Can you point me to even one scientific theory that is "proven"?
    If not - then it is clear that words are just foreign to us to confuse us.

    All the speculations you offer for the formation of life - beyond those I have proposed - fail in my eyes - both because of Ockham's razor and because they create more lack of understanding than understanding.

  95. Eddie (68):
    Tired of all this chatter about probability.
    Do you know how the probability of an event is defined?
    The probability of an event is defined as the ratio between the number of times the event happens and the number of times the lottery is held.
    To talk about probability - you need to at least describe the lottery.
    What is the lottery you are talking about? How many times has it been carried out (or is there a theoretical possibility that it will be carried out)?
    How many times did the event occur?
    You (and no one else) have no idea about any of these things and yet you gather the probability.
    This is simply pointless demagoguery!

    As I mentioned - it is likely that the whole issue will remain speculative forever, but one thing is clear: as long as no supernatural phenomenon is demonstrated in any context - even if only once - all reasonable people will continue to reject supernatural explanations for the phenomenon of life as well.
    And speaking of probability - what is the probability of the existence of an intelligent creator? Why is he exempt in your eyes from this type of aspect?

  96. Father good morning,

    I would be happy if we pick up the discussion from where it left off, i.e. response 25

  97. I released it even though it says nonsense trying to invent excuses for why science doesn't prove anything, all to disprove evolution. People have been trying to do this for 150 years and have failed. Who is Eddie who will succeed?

  98. This unfortunate "scientist" should be fired. He must be fired! Creationists as scientists in government offices? where do we live

  99. Naa Dorsh (for the last paragraph).
    How exactly will you be able to teach the school students the scientific consensus?! Let's make a comparison between how long it takes to teach a person scientific thinking and how long it takes to brainwash a child into the existence of God? And that's without even talking about the effort required from studying mathematics compared to the lazy pleasure of hearing the stories of Joseph the Dream Solver, Jonah in the Fish's Gut, Daniel in the Lion's Den, etc.

  100. Mr. M. Rothschild:

    As I announced in the previous comment, comment 59 is mine.

    As for your words regarding the so-called 'contradiction' in the statement 'proven scientific theory' - we have already discussed this question of philosophy of science, on several occasions in the past. Your position is Poperian - a fashionable position for its time, in my opinion. As demonstrated and proven by Kuhn and Bichler (among others) - each according to his own method - it is quite clear that the Popperian position is quite shaky. Scientific theories have always 'sought' to be proven positive - this is a historical fact, since Bacon at least. From a theoretical point of view, my position was, and still is today, that a theory should be - in order to be considered a scientific theory - acceptable and acceptable ('proven', in simple terms), i.e. coherent and reasonable, and definitely successful experimentally [and even 'technologically', if the technological aspect is relevant and applicable ]. The issue of provenance is an element in the foundation of plausibility, and the issue of provenance is an element in the foundation of success. It is clear that a theory hidden in experiments/observations/applications to a decisive extent, or to an extent that raises serious doubts that cannot be reasonably settled - they deserve to be abandoned or changed [and it does not yet follow that they will be completely abandoned, for example to the extent that they are 'successful' in a certain technological application]. But in any case, one should not expect that a theory will be considered scientific just because it has not yet been proven wrong, and at the same time, it is not necessary to immediately abandon it only if it has not met a certain test. The positive element I have shown - is definitely required, and at the same time reasonableness and discretion are important in assessing the scientific status of a 'scientific' system of claims and recognizing its truth value.
    Therefore, with all due respect, I do not accept your claim about 'contradiction', etc.

    Regarding the creation of the first living cell - I agree with you that the 'teachings' are speculative.

    I also agree with you that it is possible that 'in general something else happened'. For me, the 'something else' can be, in my opinion, an entity or a mechanism or a principle that operates or is expressed through physics, but it itself cannot be perceived or discovered or measured by physics - due to its realistic limitations. Subject to this, and because of this - 'something else' can be called 'natural' and can be called 'natural god' - everything is in the eye of the beholder, and the two names for the belief systems that stand behind each of them - are equal, as far as this particular scientific issue is concerned, at least . The believer that this is something 'natural' - will claim - as you claimed - that "we have never observed in the world something that happened unnaturally while all the things that have been understood so far happened naturally". Those who believe that this is something 'natural' - will claim that there are and will be many things that we do not understand and will never understand - since human reason is limited not only from a 'technical' point of view and in the historical dimension, but also in an inherent way, and is therefore capable of understanding and observing the things that we perceive as natural' - and not things that we cannot - in principle - perceive and observe, which is why they belong to the realm of the 'natural god'. - In my opinion, in order to reach the conclusion that the 'theory of abiogenesis' is not a scientific theory at all and not even a scientific hypothesis, but a speculative hashing - there is no difference between the two claims - the beliefs.

    As far as attributing the value of scientific truth to a set of claims - I reject the reliance on 'consensus of scientists' (as opposed to scientific consensus) - see my previous response. Therefore, I disagree with you to the extent that you seek to rely on your claim on the subject [ "however - the scientists, in the overwhelming majority, think that what happened is something of the general type of those speculations" ] in order to give some truth value to any speculation on the subject.

    Regarding the question of probability:
    If this were a scientific theory - I agree that the question of probability has no weight [one could even argue, in such a case, that the probability is 1], and it is actually irrelevant.
    But in this case it is not a scientific theory (and not even a scientific hypothesis)!
    Therefore, in my opinion, since this is speculation, precisely because of this the question of probability is at the heart of the matter, and it is decisive. And note that the one who raises the argument of probability does so only 'according to' the speculator's method - and rightly so, since the burden of proof and persuasion is placed on the speculator, and not on the one who denies the speculation. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the one who rejects speculation should not be committed to any theory - neither to any creationist theory nor to any materialist theory. His principled religious position is not relevant when he comes to negate - rightly - the pseudo-scientific speculation through the probabilistic argument. Therefore, your claims against creationists who come to rule out the speculation of abiogenesis (and any such speculation) on the basis of the probabilistic argument - are not justified, in my opinion.
    For the same reason, I believe that the claim of the one who rejects the speculation should not be rejected, just because he does not offer his own theory that explains the origin of life. His delusional position against speculation is justified even without offering an alternative. 'I don't know what happened there, but I'm sure your speculation is worthless' - this is a completely legitimate position, and it should be treated in a completely matter-of-fact manner.

  101. Comment 59 is mine.

    For response 61:
    Mr. Blizovsky: The process you describe ('theory of abiogenesis') is pure speculation - not a scientific theory or even a scientific hypothesis. In this matter, I agree with Mr. M. Rothschild (response 62). Hence, your position on the issue of the origin of life is nothing but speculation, and it is no wonder that you avoid the question of probability. Since your position is speculative, it is no better than the position of a creationist of the type of Dr. Gabi Avital. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for your attack on him on the issue of the origin of life - apart from the purely ideological basis. This is therefore an ideological, pseudo-scientific article, at least as far as it relates to the question of the origin of life.
    Regarding your evasion of the question of probability: since this is speculation, the question of probability is crucial.
    Your position, which claims that this is a single experiment of nature and hence the probability is 1- reflects a logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion ('required for the campaign'), since it presupposes that the process is clear and is of a purely physical nature. And isn't that exactly the question!
    There are quite a few probabilistic estimates by scientists surrounding the question of the feasibility of the initial creation of life spontaneously and based on purely physical mechanisms. All calculations point to zero feasibility, in fact. Therefore, all the existing speculations on the subject do not and cannot have a hold on reality. A scientific solution to the question of the origin of life requires a scientific theory, or at least a coherent scientific hypothesis that has an acceptable probabilistic basis. In the state of scientific knowledge today, there is no such 'animal', and anyone who claims otherwise is in my opinion no less than a charlatan.
    Your second claim ('what succeeds - will be preserved') is, how to say - a rather strange claim. In 'Teva', the success of systems, even those that are much more sophisticated than the initial cell - is subject to a very limited guarantee, and success is definitely for a limited time, to one degree or another. Should we take into account the environmental threats to the first cell and its first replicated, primitive results?

    Your reliance on 'scientific consensus' is also out of place. She also contradicts your position in the opening of the article, a position that claims that "the scientific consensus is not created like in religion by dictation or like in the Knesset by the majority of votes of whoever is more persuasive." The scientific consensus is not created as in religion by dictation or as in the Knesset by the majority of votes of whoever is more persuasive. An accepted theory is one that is able to predict the results of experiments."

    I will explain why, in my opinion, your reliance above is misplaced:
    First, the consensus is not 'scientific' - because nothing about the issue is scientific. It is all in all a consensus of certain 'scientists', that is, on people who are supposed to engage in science, and are freed, in this case, to approach an issue that they currently do not have scientific tools to ascertain, and build attitudes that are nothing more than personal 'beliefs'. It is not a coincidence that the supporters of this or that speculation only express their atheistic position from the beginning. Second, I'm not at all sure that even this consensus of 'scientists' exists, since scientists are not supposed to be stupid [at least in part] and they know how to differentiate between science and speculation. It must therefore be assumed that in many cases the 'consensus' is nothing more than the result of ideological pressure from the establishment and the social cultural milieu of the existing scientist or his branch.
    And thirdly, and this is the main thing: since when is 'consensus of scientists' evidence of the truth value of a 'scientific' position? Do we need to mention the losses of the scientific consensus around the speculations of Aristotle's physics for almost two thousand years - to understand that the consensus of scientists, as opposed to scientific consensus - its value is nothing but social and ideological?

    On the sidelines, I want to return again to the opening of the article, which claims that "scientific consensus is not formed like in religion by dictation or like in the Knesset by the majority of votes of whoever is more persuasive. An accepted theory is one that is able to predict the results of experiments."
    I ask you, Mr. Blizovsky - what really about the results of the experiments that have been conducted for approximately 60 years? The results, as far as is known, produce 'Gurnish from Gurnish', and it is doubtful at all if the speculations can even be experimentally demonstrated, at the level of principle. I have already talked about the issue of probability - zero. And if so, I ask you - would this be called an 'accepted theory' - scientific, as it were?
    I'm sorry to tell you this, but your article is precisely trying to indoctrinate "like in religion by dictation or like in the Knesset with the majority of votes of the one who convinces better", as you say!

  102. for arithmetic biology.
    The fact that the process is done in smaller steps does not contradict what I described. Abiogenesis certainly works better in smaller steps as does everything that happened afterwards (evolution). The main thing is that at the end of the process RNA is created and it really doesn't matter how many stages there were until then.
    And again - the source comes from outer space - at least they found complex organic molecules there, which surely also reached the ancient Earth

  103. Michael - No scientist in the world is able to show how the RNA molecule is created by a natural process, but in a Hindu Rab which does not resemble any natural process. You can read about it in detail here, for example -

  104. Anonymous 59:
    You ask if this is a "proven scientific theory" and you do not understand that this phrase includes an internal contradiction.
    There is no "proven scientific theory" in the world. There just isn't! There are only scientific theories that have been proven wrong and scientific theories that have so far passed all the tests.
    Regarding the creation of the first living cell - this is mostly speculation. We will probably never have a way to reach the past and know which of them (and there are many) is the one that actually happened or if something else happened at all.
    However - the scientists, in the overwhelming majority, think that what happened is something of the general type of those speculations.
    There is a very logical reason for this thought: we have never observed in the world anything that happened unnaturally while all the things understood so far happened naturally.

    The question about probability repeats on this site over and over again and all it demonstrates is the questioner's lack of understanding of the actual definition of the term "probability". Since even in this discussion I explained why this question is not serious, I will not repeat the explanation again.

    In general - substantive answers to all the questions you raised have been given on the site many times and even in this discussion such answers appear. Therefore it is clear that the very fact that you asked them again shows that you do not care about the answers you receive.

  105. To Anonymous, this is the essence of the theory of abiogenesis (in plain language) as it is currently accepted by the scientific consensus.
    There is no need to calculate probability, even if the chance of this in a single experiment of nature (lightning striking a primordial 'soup' of organic materials) is zero, then millions and billions of such cases on the entire surface of the earth and over hundreds of millions if not billions of years) must give a result Close to 1.

    Beyond that, your use of the word probability is an attempt to give evolution a random dimension when it is not, because what is successful is preserved, and therefore it raises the chance to 1. Don't mix the DNA and the RNA in every division, even though this is the accepted argument of the creationists who try to make evolution look hopeless.

  106. Daniel:
    But - since our vision is anthropocentric, our place must be at the top of the ladder by definition.
    What I tried to get you to understand is the meaninglessness of the question "Who is at the top of the ladder?" When the view is anthropocentric (because the stated point of view already predetermines the answer)

  107. To Mr. Avi Blizovsky in response 4:

    You are describing a process of the formation of life at the primary level. The description of the process is general and your opinion on the probabilistic aspect does not resonate with me. I have two questions for you:
    1. Is this a proven scientific theory or a hypothesis of certain scientists? And maybe it's just speculation that has no basis in any proven facts?
    2. If the process you describe has the status of a scientific theory, or at least a 'scientific hypothesis' - what is the probability of the creation of the first cell, according to your calculation? Are you even able to calculate such a probability? If so - is this probability at all practical, considering the age of Kadhua and his assumed conditions?

    If the article you wrote is not another argument in the framework of a dialogue between 'believers' or just a 'flowering' of a pseudo-scientific opinion, I would be happy to receive factual answers from you, if you are able to reply.

  108. Michael - this is exactly the point - the birds lack the idea and desire to establish a measure of superiority regarding creatures that are not like them. The only index that is "measured" there is the index of the dominant male or female and the index of predator-or-prey. That is, survival at the most basic level.
    If there is any measure, it is the measure of the ability to influence and the extent of your influence on the environment and your ability to design your living environment for your comfort and well-being. Luckily for us the birds are the victims of our influence and not the other way around.
    It makes no sense for a person to analyze his environment in terms of a bird, so it is clear that the mental "position" he is in when he goes out to explore his world is anthropocentric, as you say.
    Thank you for your replies, the facts you have mentioned are extremely fascinating.

  109. Ami:
    It's obvious that you don't know how to say anything meaningful and all you can do is give others baseless marks.

  110. I read the 2 articles (Gabi's and my father's), the essence of the things are very similar
    It is noticeable that two scientists are conducting an emotional debate that has a religious basis 
    It is noticeable that the two scientists fail to separate religion from science
    It is noticeable that the two scientists are dragged into the argument of God's existence using the other's denial more than evidence

  111. Daniel:
    I just noticed comment 45.
    To me, the term "top of the continuum" has no meaning at all.
    All living things today live because they fit the world as it is.
    Many of them have already been here millions of years before man so they have really proved an extraordinary fit.
    In any case - all living creatures today are "leaves" of the tree of evolution, so in terms of their "height" within the tree - they are the same as us.
    We have a tendency to rate the importance of features in an anthropocentric way, that is - one that puts the person in the center.
    Such a form of reference highlights as important the qualities that distinguish a person (such as logical thinking and the ability to discover patterns).
    I assume that if birds were ranking, they would actually put the ability to fly as a measure of "superiority".

  112. Uncle:
    Modesty is irrelevant.
    Give me even one example of a person who does not believe in any one of the laws of logic.
    You will not find such a person!
    All people on earth believe in what I define as rationality. The religious too.
    The point is that they add to the system of axioms that I believe in - additional axioms that do not agree with them logically - that is - are in conflict with the axioms of logic.
    Now - it's not that they suddenly started to believe that belief in contradictory things is logical, but that they simply sweep the problem under the rug because the brainwashing they went through made them mentally disabled.

  113. Daniel:
    I don't know why you define true awareness by asking questions that are beyond day-to-day survival.
    First of all - by doing this you define most people as unconscious.
    Besides - you don't know what goes through the minds of animals.
    Do you know that animals also dream?
    It is clear that they do not do this for the needs of daily survival.

    Beyond that - some of the examples illustrate a mental capacity that far exceeds that of a 3-year-old child.
    For example - the use that the crows make of water is extremely sophisticated.
    I happen to have real experience on the subject from my tender childhood - long before I encountered the abilities of animals - which can serve me in proving my claim.
    My parents used to use a folding device for hanging laundry - one that acts roughly like an opening umbrella.
    The only "leg" on which the device stood was inserted into a short pipe that was fixed in the floor of the balcony.
    Due to changes in the structure of the house and the function of its parts - the washing pole moved to another place and the pipe that served as its base remained on the balcony where it was installed.
    Later, a pingpong table was put on that balcony and very quickly the thought occurred to me "What would happen if a pingpong ball fell into that pipe? How will I get him out?".
    I came to the conclusion that I would get it out by pouring water into the tube and floating the ball to get it out.
    I don't know if you know me well enough, but even here on the site the fact that I am a fan of puzzles has already come to light, so I started asking the friends who came to play pingpong with me how they would solve the problem.
    I was 15 or 16 at the time and that was also the age of my friends.
    You will be surprised to hear that none of them solved the problem.
    Therefore - the fact that the crows solved it seems astonishing to me.

    I did not understand the main question.
    That conscious life has evolved in the universe is a clear fact.
    Anyone who knows the facts about evolution (such as, for example, that the human chromosome 2 is actually a thread - the joining of two chimpanzee chromosomes) must recognize the fact that man (with all his wonderful consciousness) evolved from the monkey (with his limited consciousness).
    Therefore it is clear that the universe is large and sophisticated enough for the formation of consciousness.
    What does it belong to a targeted hand?

  114. Lali:
    third. A Jew is a person who is a descendant of the tribe of Judah and who has a genetic connection to the Jewish people who lived in the Land of Israel in the Second Temple.
    d. Leave you nonsense - there are a million sites on the net for your nonsense.

  115. to me:
    A. What does "Jew" have to do with the whole thing?
    B. What the hell does "Jew" have to do with the whole thing?

  116. to me:
    Scrabble dressed.
    The state was established by secular people to serve as a refuge for the Jewish people.
    The Law of Return was defined as a mirror image of the Nazi Nuremberg Laws and classifies the Jews according to race and not according to faith.
    I could say many more things to you, but it seems to me that every moment I invest in you is a waste.

  117. To all creationists, you test the theory of evolution with a candle and a feather and ignore the stories of a thousand nights written in the book of Genesis on which the belief in a Supreme Creator is based, for example: the world has existed for 6000 years, a farfetched story, the world has existed for 4.5 billion years, the sun revolves around the earth, a farfetched story, the flood Covered the whole world up to the height of Harratt's summit, a far-fetched story, and many more examples, deal with the far-fetched stories in Genesis and leave the logical and proven theory of evolution.

  118. Arithmetic Biology:
    You may not know this but scientists do not know how to do anything supernatural.
    All the molecules they create - including the DNA molecule of Mycoplasma Labortorium were created by natural processes.
    More than that - they were created gradually and not all at once.
    The question of probability is only relevant when there is a model of the chemistry and the conditions that prevailed on the earth in the different periods. As long as there is no such information - there is no meaning to the probabilistic calculations that all kinds of yotzemach are trying to do.
    There are all sorts of speculations about the processes at the end of which replicating units were formed.

    But - and this is the funniest thing - all the supporters of creationism know very well how to be meticulous in their questions about all the details of the things that can be asked about abiogenesis and evolution. Most of the time they don't understand what they are talking about but the questions are general enough that you can find an interesting part in them. On the other hand - they do not put the alternative they propose to any similar test as the question - what is the probability that an intelligent planner will be created randomly from dark matter with the addition of salt and pepper.

  119. For Michael, this is a Jewish state, whether you like it or not.
    Meaning, there are mainly Jews here as well as religious ones.
    Likewise, the word "Jews" is also a religious term, that is,
    which refers to faith.

  120. Michael - the statistical explanation is the heart of the matter. After all, no evolutionary scientist believes that an entire cell was created at once, because everyone knows that it is hopeless. That is why they are looking for a reasonable enough explanation, in small steps and that is not supported by giant steps. The shortest replicating molecule created in a laboratory is long too. In reality, a set of enzymes is required to sew and unravel the DNA chains. So we are in a problem. There is also no enzyme that creates the four necessary bits for DNA or RNA. So there is a problem here as well. And one last thing - enough to indicate conditions natural in order for the experiment to be considered natural for all intents and purposes. So there is no need for reason here. For example: if I put water in a test tube and freeze it, ice will come out. Although the above experiment is planned, I have shown that a natural process that can occur in nature and create ice is enough. Hence ice is formed does not require reason.

  121. Michael - another point:
    I agree if your approach is about a "continuum of development". Is man (or theoretical beings elsewhere, equal to man) at the top of that continuum? Given the age of the universe, does this even make sense?

  122. Mr. Rothschild
    I assume you define yourself as a "rational person"
    You believe with complete faith that rationality is the anchor of certainty for you
    In reality you live and everyone who does not belong to the sect of rationalists does not live in reality but in their imaginations.
    You are allowed to believe it, but that does not make rationality a certainty.
    It's just what you believe in and nothing else.
    Rationality will not help you avoid the surprises that the future holds for you.
    A little modesty will do you no harm in extolling the importance of scientific rationality.

  123. Michael - well said - I loved it!
    A. So far you have brought beautiful examples of limited intelligence to the development of a 3-year-old child...
    B. These examples also speak of highly sophisticated nervous systems and brains.
    third. All examples relate to the development of autonomous awareness that concerns basic instincts such as obtaining food, primitive tribal "responsibility" necessary for survival and "maternal" instinct.
    d. In my opinion, true awareness is tested by asking questions that go beyond basic survival, such as causality of phenomena and not necessarily adaptation to environmental conditions.

    Thank you for your comment, it does touch on my question, but does not answer the main question: Is the universe as we know it a sophisticated and large enough system to develop awareness and hence a "directed hand"?

  124. Michael Shalom,

    The question at the moment is whether you wish to continue the discussion in my father's place from where it was stopped, or do you have reservations about my father's answers.

  125. generation:
    Your words are terribly shallow.
    What is "life as we understand it"? Who are those mysterious "we"? Does a bacterium have consciousness? If not - then why ("we"?) call him Chaidak?
    And can you divide the animals into those that have consciousness and those that lack it - even though all the facts (some of which I demonstrated in the links in the previous response) show that there is a sequence of development here?

  126. Year:
    Beyond the correct things that Gadi answered you, you ignore two basic facts:
    1. Evolution has countless confirmations and no scientific theory has a mathematical proof.
    2. All opposition to evolution comes from religious circles and is not based on anything scientific.

    In light of these two facts, it is clear that your claims in response 8 are incorrect.

    Just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists.
    Many scientists think there are aliens and even intelligent aliens. I think so too.
    Most scientists are convinced that the aliens - however smart they may be - cannot violate the laws of physics and the theory of relativity sets clear limits on the speed of possible movement. So it's true - no scientific theory is ever proven, but nevertheless - a scientific theory that has received as many confirmations as the theory of relativity - is something that makes a lot of sense to believe in its correctness. Do you think that because some alien is smarter than you he can draw on a sheet of paper a square that is a triangle? There are things that even the smartest creatures in the universe can't do.

    Of course, the following facts are added to all of this:
    1. Distant aliens have no reason to come here. If the reason for their arrival is the human race, then this race existed for a very short time and information about its existence could not reach them before it was created and traveled all the way to them at a speed that does not exceed the speed of light.
    2. If the information about us reached them because of the radio broadcasts we broadcast, then the only ones who could hear about us are within a range of less than 150 light years - and that is the time needed just to know about our existence and even before they started the journey to us. Stars from which we could in principle both notice our existence and travel all the way here must be within a range of 70 light years from here and that - if they set off with the first radio signal ever transmitted and move at the speed of light.
    3. There is no reliable sighting of aliens and highly funded projects that have been working for years on the discovery of aliens have so far only produced clay in their hands.

    Do you know what science is?
    Science is not any claim about the truth but only a way to find out the truth.
    This is the only way known to mankind. Do you know another way? If not - then what exactly are you talking about?
    A rational person cannot "decide" to believe or not. The decision is imposed on him based on the facts he encounters.
    The motivation to fight beliefs that contradict science stems from a number of interrelated motives:
    1. He who holds beliefs that are not based on the facts is an irrational person. Such a person - it is difficult to predict his moves and he is (rightly) perceived as dangerous.
    2. Those who hold religious beliefs have already proven themselves to be dangerous in practice. Most of the wars and other acts of organized killing, abuse and deprivation were caused by irrational beliefs and religious beliefs are an important part of those irrational beliefs.
    3. In our country - as in the other countries where the monotheistic religion has an influence on the law and the government - there is an uncontrollable phenomenon of religious coercion. The war on religious beliefs is a component of the war against this ugly phenomenon.

    Arithmetic Biology:
    First of all - most creationists do not offer the test you suggest, so it is clear that they are not expressing a scientific opinion.
    Regarding the "test" you propose - it is something that includes an internal contradiction. After all, any experiment that man will do is one that was planned and carried out by him and is not something that happened in a "natural" way. This is the hole through which the creationists are currently slipping - after they have already produced DNA synthetically. Naturally, life actually arose in one of hundreds of billions of stars and over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
    Any process that tries to shorten this period will not be "natural".
    Besides - a rebuttal experiment should be relevant. After all, the fact that something can be created naturally - does not mean that it was not created by an intelligent creator - this is also a loophole that creationists will exploit if they are shown a process that appears to them (wrongly) as a natural process that creates life.
    The claim of the existence of an intelligent creator does not depend on the ability of something to be created naturally and to claim that it is scientific a test must be defined that refers to the intelligent creator himself.
    Besides - the Yuri Miller experiment is just one of many experiments that were carried out and created additional amino acids (or showed that additional amino acids were already created in the Yuri Miller experiment).

    Besides - even if you assert some probabilistic claim - however unjustified - towards abiogenesis - at least with regard to this it can be shown that it is possible - even if with a low probability.
    Is it possible to claim a similar thing about an intelligent creator?

    In short - in the study of biology you need to advance a little beyond arithmetic.

  127. Your assumption that life originated in the first frog that succeeded in replicating itself is wrong. Life as we understand it, is self-awareness. It is not necessarily formed with the first replication molecule. It also cannot be tested by experiment.

  128. My father, hello. First, I would like to thank you for the scientific approach you took and the detailed explanation. Like you, I also hate metaphysical explanations concepts like "soul" and "deity" of any phenomenon that we don't understand. But let me make it a little harder for you. I want to talk about "awareness" as we experience it. The ability to process factual data from our environment in a logical way, the natural desire to analyze them, draw conclusions and act on them, the development of things like personal taste, ambitions and ideas and above all the ability to say "I"... the ability to use the imagination in a deliberate way and by manipulating the results of our attempts to create New ideas, realities and facts in our environment.
    You don't have to be a scientist to immediately notice the huge gap between man and the rest of life on earth when it comes to analysis, ideas and invention. Are you claiming that when a system (brain cells, for example) reaches a certain size and diversity it will develop self-awareness, will and the ability to conceive ideas? If so, will the Internet wake up - as Arthur C. Clark predicted when he came up with the idea of ​​communication satellites (a short story in the collection "The Wind Blowing from the Sun")?
    As you know, the study of the human brain is still in its infancy, and as long as this is the case, the main question (in my opinion) regarding awareness is unanswerable... and it is the only one that can answer the question of "the guiding hand".
    By the way, in the event that the above theory regarding the development of awareness in systems beyond a certain size is correct - then does the universe as we know it constitute a sophisticated and large enough system to develop awareness?
    I would be happy to receive a serious reference to the issue. Thanks.

  129. Creationism (intelligent planning to be precise) becomes a scientific theory as soon as it proposes a test to disprove it. The test is to demonstrate natural conditions that would cause the formation of complex RNA or DNA molecules. Because then you will ignore the need for a planner anyway. I am not aware of any experiment that brought fish into his net In principle, such an experiment can confirm evolution, as well as intelligent planning. Therefore, in this section, their weight is the same. Who created the planner? A thing without a beginning does not require a planner anyway, and therefore it is possible that the creator himself did not have a beginning. It is known to man that there was some kind of beginning, that's all The difference. So the logical argument here is quite valid.

  130. Creationism is not a theory but an opinion.
    For the theory of evolution, scientific experiments with empirical results were defined that confirmed it and results were defined that, if accepted, would disprove it.
    Which experiment confirms creationism and which results disprove it?
    Creationism is an idea/possibility/story/legend...not a theory and therefore has no place in science classes.
    Statistical proofs are not accepted in the life sciences, statistical improbability is not proof

    Beyond that, the possibility of correctness has not been proven either, and therefore hypotheses or hopes about an advanced entity or entities are not science and have no place in the scientific discourse.
    Beyond that, there is a close logical argument if they really "created/communicated/guide" a New Age word of one kind or another, what preceded them? They also have more advanced "guides" than them...
    And for arithmetic biology, what's wrong with the claim you made is that you answer a question with a bigger question, really, it's fine. Let's assume that the engine needs more. There is an engine that creates ATP molecules, but who created it? After all, it is probably more advanced than the same engine, so it also needs a manufacturer and what is there at the end? Invalid logical argument.

    And I have to say that all of a sudden this openness to ideas as long as they are in science classes, I want in your classes to also learn Koran Brit and New Testament and why not let's also learn battlefield earth a little bit of Scientology why isn't it also a reasonable religion like all the others.

  131. If I may expand a little on the subject-

    The main creationist claims against abiogenesis are the creation of the first replicator (the shortest replicator created in the laboratory consists of approximately one hundred bases) and the creation of the genetic code, i.e. translation into proteins. Another claim is that evolution is irrefutable and therefore not scientific (for example, a common claim is to look for rabbits in the Precambrian, but this is something that may take years and millions of dollars).Although in my opinion it is disprovable, but this also includes the creationist theory. In my opinion, a refutation of one theory would be a confirmation of the other theory. It is enough to show that a natural process can create complicated RNA or DNA molecules The problem is that in Yuri Miller's experiment not all the acids required for life were formed, and the simple ones were still formed. In addition, no nucleotides were formed at all. Even in planned experiments, only one type of nucleotide was formed, but the other types break down under these conditions, so it is not possible to find an experiment in which all four are formed The nucleotides. Problem.

    The main argument against evolution is engines such as the ATP turbine, which appears to be a real engine with a rotor and everything. The creationists' argument is logical - an engine requires a creator, until proven otherwise. What's wrong with this argument. In my opinion, both sides should be taught, while maintaining a healthy skepticism.

  132. Avi Shalom,

    I would be happy to receive your response, when you are free.
    In the meantime, have a good day.


  133. Mr. Belisovsky:
    It seems to me that science for you forms the basis of your belief in your ability as a person to control and put order in the reality of your life.
    Otherwise why do other people's beliefs bother you and why do you try to cancel and negate them.
    Every person needs some kind of faith, because reality is uncertain and never will be.
    Your beliefs are designed to provide you with the feeling that you are able to control uncertainty.
    Whether it's a fake feeling or not you can't rule out different beliefs from your own, which are designed to satisfy that very need for some kind of anchor.
    As a shield from the fears of the future. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or religious.
    The need for faith is a natural human need and in this respect everyone is religious.

  134. Ofer
    Hello, your "logical" way is not really logical, because the next step is speculation. Is "sublime" intelligence possible - yes.
    Good, from here on to God. with slight logic jumps.
    As long as nothing has been proven, as long as once a week a prophet arises and twice a week a false deceiver, there is no point in continuing this nonsense.
    As someone who was there, knows the "logic" - arguments like "so your father was a monkey" (which, by the way, makes more sense than "your father was mud") - read, learn, base yourself on what you have seen in life. If you've ever seen anything unnatural then respectfully, pray (or take medication / stop the hallucinogens). If you understand that in light of all the lies / x-rays / syringes there is probably something else here - then continue with the logically required next step - probably every story about something that is not according to the way of nature is a deception arising from interests.
    Or are you here to argue and then I suggest that you stop wasting time canceling the Torah.
    And by the way, metaphysics is another piece of nonsense, you can say that I still don't understand the technology (in a very strange way there were no incandescent light bulbs three thousand years ago and in turn there is no story about jeep trips - neither early nor late), this does not mean that when there is no answer, it is also a stupid answer favor.

  135. Girlfriend, I'm sorry, right now I don't have time, I have to work on other things not related to the site. However - if you want an answer to the question of whether carbon dioxide gas emitted by humans is the cause of the problem, it is found on the next page
    The topic of cycles is also addressed on the Skeptic Science website.

    If anyone wants to volunteer to translate the above pages, I received permission from the website owners, I would be happy to help.

    Thanks Avi Blizovsky

  136. I completely agree with you about the science of evolution, but I wanted to ask you a question about global warming. As far as I understand, it has been proven that the Earth was warmer in the past than it is today, even before we started polluting the atmosphere.
    There is no doubt that the Earth is currently on a warming trend, and there is no doubt that our "contribution" to the atmosphere helps this warming, but is (in your opinion) the big picture a cyclical warming and cooling of the Earth?

    Good Day.

  137. to Ofer
    The answer is yes, it is logical (in your wording logical) to attribute difficulty to an ability that is "superior to us", logical due to the use of the word ability, to which one can always attribute difficulty - some difficulty.

  138. hello my father

    I would like to ask a question about global warming. Regarding the fact that there is warming, there is not too much doubt, and it is not too complicated to measure it.

    But I didn't see any references to the results of studies that proved the connection between the concentration of carbon dioxide and that warming. So how can we so easily attribute the cause to humans?
    Definitely something happened but, you don't have to jump to vote.

    Unless I missed such experiments, and if so I would like to read a little about them and it would be nice if you could give some names.
    - In general, I must say that it is difficult for me to imagine how such an experiment would be carried out.

    In addition, I want to say to Mr. Ofer: What the hell?

    Thanks, Doron.

  139. Avi,

    God forbid, I have no intention of putting words in your mouth. What's more, such a procedure drops the ground I'm walking on, we were a logical sequence.
    I find a little anger in your response, and if so, I ask for your forgiveness.

    With your permission, I will ask a preliminary question,
    If you lived 3,000 years ago. How would you relate to turning on an electric incandescent light bulb?
    Is it as technology, or metaphysics?

  140. Hello, father, I have a question that I want to ask you and I would be happy if you could answer it. Lately I have been very interested in evolution and want to know and understand exactly how it works because I do not understand anything about evolution, so two weeks ago I bought the book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins . So I wanted to know if you know the book and if you have read it? And can this book explain evolution to me in the best way?

  141. First of all I did not refer to the metaphysical ability of other beings, but to the technological ability. Don't put words in my mouth. For me physics is not dead yet.

    Ability is not something metaphysical and cannot be sublime. It can be different from ours - and if it is more advanced than us, then that is the word that should be chosen, we are not on a New Age site and the word sublime has meaning only when borrowed and nothing more.

    All I said is that there is a reasonable chance that there are other civilizations and a smaller chance that they are more advanced than ours and a zero chance that we can contact them. If it is impossible to contact or even view them, it means that everything we say about them will be in the realm of imagination and therefore your request has no meaning.

  142. Avi,

    I will only add that if this is your answer, then the metaphysical abilities of that entity do not flow to us either.

    So, let's examine what has been agreed upon between the two of us so far:
    1. There may be an advanced entity outside the boundaries we know.
    2. The entity could be more advanced than ours.
    3. We do not have the tools to gauge its technological or metaphysical capabilities.

    the question,
    If these are the data, is it logical to attribute difficulty to an ability that is superior to us?

  143. Avi,

    Unfortunately, you did not answer my question.
    Until now the dialogue has been based on logical continuity, as soon as the logical sequence is violated, no result can be reached, which is a shame.

  144. Until there is a real meeting and not one in the imagination of communicators of various kinds that caused the split between the two Ahamim associations, there is no way to assess. Everything will be a figment of imagination and in this (imagination) probably the Hebrewists are better than the scientists.

  145. Avi,

    If so, we both agree that there may be an advanced intelligent being elsewhere.
    The dispute as it stands at this point is the ability of that entity to establish contact due to the distance.
    the question,
    Assuming there is an advanced being, do you think you have the tools to gauge its technological capability?

  146. There is a chance that there is maybe one civilization in each galaxy, the conclusion is that even if there are billions of galaxies, the distances are so great that these civilizations will not meet.

  147. Father, it's a shame you didn't mention the excellent book "The Fish Within" by Prof. Neil Chaubin, which shows the evolutionary development from fish to man a step to the side.

  148. Lauri S: Do not mix religion, metaphysics and theology. Avital's positions are more in the nature of a theological discourse rather than a metaphysical one. Almost every scientist has asked metaphysical questions. Kagan also asked what time is it? It is a metaphysical question or for example: what is the relationship between the body and the mind is a metaphysical question. Metaphysics is closely related to the development of important scientific questions and answers. However Avital's position would represent bad metaphysics at best, or outrageous theology at worst. Science, as Avi Blizovsky asserts, is not here, but scholastic arguments that take place in dark ages of human knowledge 

  149. Avi,

    After we both agree that indeed, there may be intelligent life outside the boundaries we know, do you think there is a possibility that this intelligence is more advanced than ours?

  150. The answer is yes, but if we take as an example the formation of intelligent life on Earth in its half-life and not before, it means that this is a rare phenomenon, unlike life at the bacterial level or even the equivalent of non-intelligent animals and plants. Therefore the relationship with them is problematic because of the distance.

  151. Father good morning,

    a question.
    In your opinion, can an evolutionary course allow the development of intelligent life outside the limits known to us?

  152. Yair, really? The secularists must believe in evolution and cannot deal with overwhelming proof against it? Good thing you didn't get carried away.

    Perhaps you are trying to argue something along the lines of "if evolution is disproved, the secularists will have to believe in God and it will be intolerable for them" which is wrong on several different levels (belief in God does not require the refutation of evolution - all that is required is a search for another explanation for the origin of man; and belief in the existence of a higher power does not entail Belief in a specific personal god, which is what will really bother the secularists; and also recognizing the existence of a specific personal god will not necessarily be problematic for the secularists, although some may think that one should rebel against this god and not obey him).

  153. In my opinion, religious people (and I am not entering into a discussion about what someone or an unknown person said) have the possibility to examine with a more critical and objective eye, theories for the formation of the universe, the planetary system and life. Unlike secularists, they do not have to believe in evolution, etc., but can either believe in them or not. If there was overwhelming proof against evolution, the secular could not deal with it, whereas if there was overwhelming proof in favor of it, it would not bother the religious. Religion does not talk about how the world was created but about who created it. (With the exception of the Karaites, who only look at what is explicitly written in the Bible, despite the contradictions, and do not have sermons, etc.).
    In the end each person and each scientist chooses what to believe.

  154. Hello my father,
    Very interesting article. But to be precise: it is not possible to say "the ten hottest years in history..." because, as you said, the relevant history is at least several billion years old and we measure less than 150 years. According to the same logic that appears in your argument about evolution, it can be said that our sample in relation to warming is nevertheless a small sample and may not properly represent the complicated problem, and in addition does not allow the understanding of its causes, if it does occur.

  155. Abi, I completely agree with the facts in your article, at the same time I think the article is unnecessary. And God forbid I'm not trying to criticize you or your intentions. Why is the article unnecessary? Because the very act of writing the arguments puts science and its speakers in a defensive position or as a spearhead against religion or metaphysics for any issue. The world is no longer in Galileo's time. The very debate gives a platform to Dr. Avital's foolish opinions. I would content myself with a few general statements. For example: "Science deals with the mechanism of phenomena, including the formation of life. At the same time, what is the purpose in the formation of life or the universe or the material entity is not clear to science. God and religion is one explanation for the purpose of life and the universe, although it is not logically satisfactory because one can always ask what is the purpose of God's creation? Whoever is willing to live in this ignorance and still engage in the wonderful discoveries of science is a scientist. Mishrat wants to defend himself against the unbearable state of the news by raising his eyes to the sky and depending on the name of God as an all-powerful explanation for him.

  156. Father, I want to thank you for the article, unfortunately there is a majority among Israelis in particular and people in general who see eye to eye with Dr. Gabi Avital.
    My friends, who are all intelligent people, most of them do not understand evolution and do not try to understand, and I place the responsibility on the education system that does not educate its students to be curious, at home I try to develop the natural curiosity of my two children as well as their imagination, which I think is also important.
    I am hopeful that in our generation we will see a change in humanity's attitude towards science, but I am skeptical.

  157. To Eli, if you write these lines, it means that the statistical chance is 1.
    Regardless, time is certainly sufficient for a process that is not completely random because it is self-feeding. Once life has been absorbed and has become even worse, there is no way back unless there is an ecological disaster that will destroy the earth from the ground up and not leave a single stone of it. Therefore, it is enough that an event that takes one second per cubic meter, and it had trillions upon trillions of seconds in trillions of cubic meters over a billion years, there is no chance that they will not come out if the external conditions - temperature and presence of water - are met.
    The question is whether other such living beings exist on other planets - the answer can be positive but statistically most of them did not go through the stage of primitive life, which as I recall also on Earth accounted for 80% of the time.

  158. Father, if you've already brought up the subject, I'm interested in knowing what the statistical chance is of life forming on a planet like ours and in the universe in general?

  159. Perhaps he was brought to the position he is in because of his opinions, which are apparently quite comfortable for them...

  160. The problem is not with Avital himself, but with the people who brought him to the center of power where he is today despite his opinions. Unfortunately, he is neither the only nor the most dangerous of them.

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.