D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 1 都到了炉火纯青，油盐不进的地步了，都是找一个数学上的概念，挂上去，无视其他论
证，这辈子就靠那个概念活着了。并不是概念本身的问题，而是他们个人对概念的理解
和应用已经到了偏执的程度 |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 2 Who brags about the "rigorous proof" of Darwin's theory, and take Darwin's
theory as the ultimate truth 到了偏执的程度? Again, resulting to personal
assults doesn't help your argument.
BTW, for the record, I believe "太 初 有 道 ， 道 與 神 同 在 ， 道 就 是 神 。"
and only Darwin's theory followers believe in "randomness". Your title is misleading.
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: 都到了炉火纯青，油盐不进的地步了，都是找一个数学上的概念，挂上去，无视其他论
: 证，这辈子就靠那个概念活着了。并不是概念本身的问题，而是他们个人对概念的理解
: 和应用已经到了偏执的程度
|
i*****t
发帖数: 24265 | 3 不必浪费时间
神 。"
misleading.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: Who brags about the "rigorous proof" of Darwin's theory, and take Darwin's
: theory as the ultimate truth 到了偏执的程度? Again, resulting to personal
: assults doesn't help your argument.
: BTW, for the record, I believe "太 初 有 道 ， 道 與 神 同 在 ， 道 就 是 神 。"
: and only Darwin's theory followers believe in "randomness". Your title is misleading.
|
D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 4 I support evolution because of the evidences in gene homology, fossil
records and comparative anatomy. The strength of proof supporting evolution
is far more rigorous than creationism.
Your applying "rigorous proof-checking" for evolution and then blindly
believing in creationism is the evidence of bigotry.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: Who brags about the "rigorous proof" of Darwin's theory, and take Darwin's
: theory as the ultimate truth 到了偏执的程度? Again, resulting to personal
: assults doesn't help your argument.
: BTW, for the record, I believe "太 初 有 道 ， 道 與 神 同 在 ， 道 就 是 神 。"
: and only Darwin's theory followers believe in "randomness". Your title is misleading.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 5
"he evidences in gene homology, fossil records and comparative anatomy"
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: I support evolution because of the evidences in gene homology, fossil
: records and comparative anatomy. The strength of proof supporting evolution
: is far more rigorous than creationism.
: Your applying "rigorous proof-checking" for evolution and then blindly
: believing in creationism is the evidence of bigotry.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 6 thanks. Advice taken.
【在 i*****t 的大作中提到】
: 不必浪费时间
:
: 神 。"
: misleading.
|
D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 7 Evolution's assumption of random direction in mutation is a very weak
assumption. Creationism's assumption of an almighty God is a very strong
assumption. Evolution is supported by the evidences with the help of a weak
assumption. Creationism is supported by the evidences with the help of a
super strong assumption. That is why evolution is a much better explanation
than creationism.
You are questioning a weak assumption and then blindly believing in a strong
assumption.
Claiming it to be a faith doesn't give you the right to irrational arguments.
cause,
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: thanks. Advice taken.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 8 I'm glad that we finally reached an agreement -- the difference between Darwin's
theory & Creationsim is a difference in their assumptions.
Which assumption is weak or strong is subjective (belief-based). Since
I have taken the advice to 不必浪费时间. Let's pause for now, and think
about how to create order out of chaos w/o any intervention.
weak
explanation
strong
arguments.
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: Evolution's assumption of random direction in mutation is a very weak
: assumption. Creationism's assumption of an almighty God is a very strong
: assumption. Evolution is supported by the evidences with the help of a weak
: assumption. Creationism is supported by the evidences with the help of a
: super strong assumption. That is why evolution is a much better explanation
: than creationism.
: You are questioning a weak assumption and then blindly believing in a strong
: assumption.
: Claiming it to be a faith doesn't give you the right to irrational arguments.
:
|
T*******r
发帖数: 333 | 9 一个小朋友说：“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
懂飞机的人告诉他：“飞机有发动机，你不懂我可以教你”。
“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
“飞机还有翅膀，你不懂我可以教你”。
“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
“飞机有物理学基础，你不懂我可以教你。”
“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
“飞机实际上可以飞起来。如果你懂了前面的东西，那么你就可以知道飞机是怎么飞起
来的。”
“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
……
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: 都到了炉火纯青，油盐不进的地步了，都是找一个数学上的概念，挂上去，无视其他论
: 证，这辈子就靠那个概念活着了。并不是概念本身的问题，而是他们个人对概念的理解
: 和应用已经到了偏执的程度
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 10 還有所長的循環論證，也是傑作。
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: 都到了炉火纯青，油盐不进的地步了，都是找一个数学上的概念，挂上去，无视其他论
: 证，这辈子就靠那个概念活着了。并不是概念本身的问题，而是他们个人对概念的理解
: 和应用已经到了偏执的程度
|
|
|
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 11 哈哈，形象
【在 T*******r 的大作中提到】
: 一个小朋友说：“金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
: 懂飞机的人告诉他：“飞机有发动机，你不懂我可以教你”。
: “金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
: “飞机还有翅膀，你不懂我可以教你”。
: “金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
: “飞机有物理学基础，你不懂我可以教你。”
: “金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
: “飞机实际上可以飞起来。如果你懂了前面的东西，那么你就可以知道飞机是怎么飞起
: 来的。”
: “金属比空气重，飞机怎么可能飞起来！”
|
D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 12 The assumption of random direction in mutation is certainly weaker because
it is very specific and does not contain the almighty-god assumption.
On the other hand, the almighty-god assumption is super strong because it
contains everything including the direction-in-mutation assumption.
When you don't know the direction in mutation, assuming it is random is the
default and it is proved by genetic experiments. Assuming it has a direction
is assuming a lot more and needs a lot more proof.
It is strange. You didn't think of any intervention when seeing the
beautiful structure of the ice crystals formed on a cold window and you didn
't think of any intervention when a single cell can grow into a whole
conscious human being, but you cannot accept the fact that complex species
evolve from more premitive ones. The divine intervention assumption is a
very strong assumption and has little proof except for some blatant claims
made by religious bigots.
在 littletshirt (小仙鹤) 的大作中提到: 】
Darwin's |
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 13 温习温习，
qiaqiafeng
上次有个牛跟我聊天，他还用小本子记下了，当做重要文献，他手下的postdoc可要忙
一阵子了。不读圣经的，知识实在太贫乏了。
qiaqiafeng：
信是自己放弃自己固有的逻辑才去信的。
qiaqiafeng：
说个时间的事儿，小学时候，自然课里老师说，时间是没有起点也没有终点的，到了高
中，老是说时间是有起点的，象个射线。连这些基本的概念都变来变去的。圣经上第一
句话就是，“起初，神创造天地”。一个起初，就定了时间坐标的起点，不管什么大爆
炸小爆炸理论，圣经已经启示了。
qiaqiafeng：
无知者说话实在是无畏，令人叹为观止。
最近科学发展才有了克隆技术，而且红红火火，但怎么发展，公羊公牛的干细胞也变不
成母羊母牛。而且出来的是成年的生理年龄而不是幼胎的生理年龄。刚刚最近才发现，
肋骨中的干细胞是干细胞活性最好的，而且出来的生理年龄也相对很低。科学发展再快
又如何。读读圣经就知道了。
愚昧？！狭义？！哈哈～～～～～ |
c****g
发帖数: 3893 | 14 对了，你是啥专业来者？
神 。"
misleading.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: Who brags about the "rigorous proof" of Darwin's theory, and take Darwin's
: theory as the ultimate truth 到了偏执的程度? Again, resulting to personal
: assults doesn't help your argument.
: BTW, for the record, I believe "太 初 有 道 ， 道 與 神 同 在 ， 道 就 是 神 。"
: and only Darwin's theory followers believe in "randomness". Your title is misleading.
|
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 15 据说和你的一个专业是一样的，据说，
据说目前改行搞＂金融＂了，这也是据说
跳跃的幅度这么大，可能这么多年辛苦研究也没搞出一个支持创造论的啥啥的，心灰意
冷了吧，我这是猜想
【在 c****g 的大作中提到】
: 对了，你是啥专业来者？
:
: 神 。"
: misleading.
|
r******9
发帖数: 106 | 16
【在 D*****r 的大作中提到】
: 都到了炉火纯青，油盐不进的地步了，都是找一个数学上的概念，挂上去，无视其他论
: 证，这辈子就靠那个概念活着了。并不是概念本身的问题，而是他们个人对概念的理解
: 和应用已经到了偏执的程度
|
