返回列表 回覆 發帖

創造論不是偽科學,而是「宗教為核、科學為輔」

回覆 1# Guest from 124.244.37.x

演化論,幾時用科學方法證實過?科咩學?舊年哂你唔識科學你到宜家都未補返足堂?
回覆 4# 抽刀斷水

which social structure of human can't be explained by evolution?

It's important to understand that the application of evolutionary principles to complex human social structures is a very nuanced and often debated area.  While evolutionary biology can offer insights into the origins of certain social behaviors, it doesn't fully explain the intricate details of how societies are structured today.  Many factors beyond purely biological evolution play a crucial role, including culture, history, technology, and individual choice.

That being said, some aspects of human social structure are harder to fully explain through a purely evolutionary lens, particularly when those aspects seem to contradict what might be expected from simple natural selection:

Large-scale cooperation among unrelated individuals: While kin selection (favoring relatives) and reciprocal altruism (expecting payback) explain some cooperation, humans often cooperate in very large groups with people they are not related to and may never interact with again. Explaining the evolution of this level of cooperation is complex and involves factors like cultural evolution, group selection (a controversial idea), and reputation.
Highly variable mating systems: Humans exhibit a wide range of mating systems, from monogamy to polygyny to polyandry, and these can vary significantly across cultures. While evolutionary explanations exist for some mating preferences, the sheer diversity and fluidity of human mating systems are not easily reduced to simple biological imperatives.
Complex social hierarchies: While dominance hierarchies exist in some animal species, human social hierarchies are far more complex and involve factors like wealth, power, status, and ideology. Evolutionary psychology can offer some insights into the psychological underpinnings of status-seeking behavior, but it doesn't fully explain the specific forms that social hierarchies take in different societies.
Rapid cultural evolution: Human cultures evolve much faster than biological evolution. Technological advancements, social norms, and belief systems can change dramatically within a few generations, far outpacing the pace of genetic change. This rapid cultural evolution can lead to social structures that are not easily explained by slow biological evolution.
Altruism towards strangers: While some altruism can be explained by kin selection or reciprocity, humans sometimes show altruism towards complete strangers, even at a cost to themselves. Explaining this type of behavior is challenging from a purely evolutionary perspective and may involve factors like empathy, moral reasoning, and cultural norms.
It's crucial to avoid what's called the "naturalistic fallacy" – the idea that what is natural is necessarily good or justifiable.  Just because a behavior might have an evolutionary basis doesn't mean it's morally right or that we should necessarily perpetuate it.  Human societies are shaped by a complex interplay of biology, culture, and individual agency, and we have the capacity to make choices that go beyond our evolutionary predispositions.

In conclusion, while evolutionary principles can provide valuable insights into the origins of some human social behaviors, they don't fully explain the complexity and diversity of human social structures.  Many other factors, including culture, history, technology, and individual choice, play a crucial role in shaping how societies are organized.




咁點corroborates the hypothesis呢?

scientific process, 觀察到有不符理論嘅現象,咪好大機會個理論係錯囉。咁演化論又有咩嘗試過解釋到上面嘅現象吖?
Darwinism 同 neo Darwinism都係以natural selection為基礎,Natural selection點解釋到上面嘅行為?
回覆 6# 抽刀斷水

即係你道聽塗說唔識答囉,唔識答就唔好隨便提出啦,都好多次係咁啦。
少少literature review,自我思考嘅能力都唔展示,淨識做標題黨,就唔會令人覺得有咩高水平囉。
本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2025/2/21 03:34 編輯

回覆 8# 抽刀斷水

從來冇人會識晒所有野㗎。

發現自己唔識嘅時候,咪唔好堅持自己嘅提倡咁啫。

誰主張誰舉證,咁簡單嘅討則都懶去守,反映左啲咩?你提出黎嘅野係你去維護㗎嘛,關我叉事。原作者都係俾你擺上枱啫,我冇需要揾佢㗎。或唔啱嘅,次次有人問親我乜野聖經難題我唔識,我叫佢直接自己問神?呢個唔知係咪離教者接受嘅態度呢?
有人問我乜野聖經難題我唔識答,我一係就自己查資料,一係就不再主張根據未能釋疑嘅聖經內容引申或支持嘅主張囉。呢啲唔係正確態度咩?定係其實成個討論區裡都唔應該用呢種態度,總之自己信乜就堅持到底重重複複三幅被講到當自己一定啱?

我不嬲都係提出質疑嘅人黎㗎啦,有咩人立論我覺得有漏洞我咪指俾佢睇,期望佢一係揾到啲野補返個洞完善個理論,一係發現個立論唔正確囉。呢啲從來都係我嘅behaviour黎㗎。
咁樣唔係正確討論態度咩?唔係真理越辯越明咩?
我非常非常少開帖立論㗎,因為知道立論係要有好強嘅證據支持㗎嘛。出左3000帖,總共自己只係開過14個之嘛。我冇討論區數據庫存取呀,你咪自己睇吓呢種行為模式嘅開帖比例算係高定唔高囉。我睇返我開過嘅帖真有做立論嘅,10個唔夠(仲有兩個係實在需要解決嘅版務問題),而我都認為全部言之有物,經得起批判呀。
做到咁嘅水平,睇返本網其他人,我完全覺得我對得起個"叻"字喎。

習慣說都話故君子之學貴慎始啦,學野黎講,我用求真嘅態度去嚴謹地問問題提出質疑,我睇唔到我邊度有問題喎,唔通好似邉啲網友咁,認左個師傅人地講乜狗屎垃圾都照單全收就係好嘅學習態度?

我幾高明低明,你地鍾意點睇咪點睇,我從來唔介意㗎,我最介意係我自己講啲野真唔真經唔經得起驗證啫。

我嘅意見就只係,最近呢兩年見你講嘅野,講野嘅方法越黎越唔高明,就更令我唔認為你嘅一啲主張係高明囉。

可能有人覺得小生找碴,小生倒也不怪,反正小生也是來在立論中找碴的
jimmychauck 發表於 2023/7/4 05:27

本人已指出,刀為物理存在,而標準只為原則屬於概念,抽兄尚自勸在下"所以,你要看「刀 - 聖經」類比兩者的相似之處,而非看相異之處。"。卻在十年以先曉在下以上述(類比不正確,因為聖經是真理,不是世俗的法律。)道理,不認為同樣作為條例的二物可作相比。
這個本人希望抽兄三思,避免因需逞口舌之爭之快,而忽略真理探索之重要
jimmychauck 發表於 2023/7/3 20:58
本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2025/2/21 17:19 編輯

回覆 10# 抽刀斷水

貼完又縮又話唔主張,同你貼果個大於十項嘅亂槍打鳥SAB嘅反應冇分別,你嘅表現都好persistent。

我係主張三位一體的,
1.請問你宜家想根據乜野A,對三位一體提出乜野質疑呢?請問我認唔認同主唔主張乜野A呢?
2.請問我根據乜野B,對演化論未用科學方法證實過提出質疑呢?請問我認唔認同主唔主張乜野B呢?咁你又認唔認同科學方法呢?你唔認同科學方法你可以出聲㗎。
3.請問我有冇唔認為你或任何人需要完全理解演化論都可以相信呢?
4.條link我冇興趣詳細研究,我只問你最淺層嘅問題,請問世俗既法院係依照科學方法抑或純邏輯去判決呢?請問法院的判決,如莊豐源案,是保證沒有邏輯謬誤嗎?請問你保證該判決沒有邏輯謬誤嗎?這是"訴諸權威"還是"公認知謬論"呢?
5.請問以上幾個類比,應該睇兩者裡面嘅同或不同之處先成立呢?如有不同,算唔算寬己嚴人既雙重標準?

你唔想進入"同我進行辯證"呢淌渾水,認為有個法院判決,有份論文abstract,已夠支撐你自己嘅相信,你冇興趣再諗,你咪開聲囉。啲基督徒都不時同你地講,你自己睇吓聖經點講,阿邊個牧師/教授/醫生點講啦,你能夠如何對佢地嘅說詞嗤之以鼻,我就能夠如何對你宜家咁嘅說詞嗤之以鼻。

我去質疑,係因為我認為我有能力提出啲簡單嘅表證去質疑嘛,係希望有啲會對此有更多思考嘅人去同我一齊討論探索。如果你唔係果類人,只係想對我簡單提出訴諸某啲權威就算,你就早響唔好嘥我唇舌。嘅然個權威嘅原文都已經喺度,如果佢真係已經處理過我提出嘅質疑,你係應該可以好簡單剪貼複製就回覆到我,如果唔係的話,咪即係代表我提出嘅質疑未有人處理過囉。如果你係單純懶連呢個咁簡單literature review嘅動作都唔做,我就覺得憑呢種態度都冇乜資格喺我面前認為思想比我深入或者可以好合理地提出主張囉。

有睇開新聞都聽過好多接受上訴嘅理據係"原審法官沒有處理乜沒有處理物",法律上係叫error of law:Ignoring probative evidence, Neglecting a material issue
求其問gemini:
if judge did not consider a piece of evidence or view point, does it makes a valid reason for appeal?
Yes, it can be a valid reason for appeal. Here's why:
Error of Law: If the overlooked evidence or viewpoint is significant enough that it could have changed the outcome of the case, it could be considered an error of law. Appellate courts can overturn decisions based on errors of law.

我就只係提出左一個質疑啫,你一係就隨手揾篇文話阿邊個點處理過呢個問題,跟住可能講埋自己只係貼唔係主張,一係就自己試吓處理,一係咪話自己決定唔處理囉。兜咁大個圈都係唔肯認果個質疑宜家未有解釋,為乜呢?反映啲乜呢?面對質疑,唔係去解疑,係去問人動機,叫人反省,叫人自己揾資料,同離教者口中嘅基督徒行為有好大分別咩?
定係其實,你都講左唔主張該論文中嘅意見,我係咪可以當你冇講過?
咁隨隨便便就貼啲自己substantiate唔到嘅野出黎,同某啲人喺討論區灌水嘅行為又係咪真係好大分別?


話題要轉了嗎?
回覆 12# 抽刀斷水

咁就好可能反映你冇literature review嘅能力。

唔睇全部,起碼睇頭睇尾揾重點啦。

貼完又縮又話唔主張,同你貼果個大於十項嘅亂槍打鳥SAB嘅反應冇分別,你嘅表現都好persistent。
....
定係其實,你都講左唔主張該論文中嘅意見,我係咪可以當你冇講過?
咁隨隨便便就貼啲自己substantiate唔到嘅野出黎,同某啲人喺討論區灌水嘅行為又係咪真係好大分別?
jimmychauck 發表於 2025/2/21 13:02


話題要轉了嗎?
本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2025/2/22 09:34 編輯

回覆 14# 抽刀斷水

我每一個問題都係指向緊你前一帖嘅論據,我唔明你唔明啲乜。問題都分疑問反問設問。

你又問起要唔要明晒三位一體屬唔屬於雙重標準。
我咪將你疑問裡面所有構成部份逐個劏屍咁同你睇囉。
你係唔係唔鍾意我用設問?我直接用肯定句講出黎你先至明?
sorry。你可能唔鍾意我用反問設問,我唯有直接用肯定句講出黎你先至明。

慣左教人野時係用問題引導對方思考,問問題我係問到慣晒。我啲所謂"問題",基本上有睇過吓我講乜都應該識答,我就唔expect有人稍為睇過吓我講嘅野係唔知啲設問反問想表逹乜野,如果佢都係唔明我只覺得對方根本冇認真睇過。

我怕我呢個習慣要改啦,都好似係討論區唔只講過一次。

貼啲資料出黎,又話自己唔主張資料所主張,人地質疑內容又冇聲出,極其量就只叫人參考,我就覺得可以基本可以忽略不理嘅。
有人討論不嬲係好嘅,我就不嬲唔想唔理人,所以我就不嬲覺得你貼出黎嘅野你自己要稍稍拜讀消化研究,但咁經過多次驗證後就發覺你係單純標題黨灌水居多,最少就算真係好有研究一樣吝於分享,咁你以後貼啲乜,我基本上提出合理質疑後就無需看待,亦唔應該期望你會有咩更多input。

2.請問我根據乜野B,對演化論未用科學方法證實過提出質疑呢?請問我認唔認同主唔主張乜野B呢?咁你又認唔認同科學方法呢?你唔認同科學方法你可以出聲㗎。
我係根據科學方法嘅內容,去質疑"演化論經過科學方法驗證",specifically係#5提出嘅質疑我唔認為"演化論"處理過,不符合additional observation corroborate hypothesis 原則。我相信你都認同科學方法㗎,所以討論嘅基礎就係科學方法。咁如果你可以講你唔係嘅,或者科學方法唔應該係今次嘅討論基礎,咁就你闡述清楚先再討論啦,否則講乜都係雞同鴨講冇意義。
1. 請問你宜家想根據乜野A,對三位一體提出乜野質疑呢?請問我認唔認同主唔主張乜野A呢?
3.請問我有冇唔認為你或任何人需要完全理解演化論都可以相信呢?

你提出多於一點去質疑我嘅質疑,我就逐個點同你睇。
你主要論據一係我處理三位一體時雙重標準。
首先你冇具體講三位一體當時你根據乜野提出點樣質疑,及當時嘅討論基礎,好似我上面清晰寫出咁,我就無從比較,根本無法見到兩者中間有乜野parallel,當然就無法判斷點樣雙重標準。咁而誰主張誰舉證,你就根本build唔同一個case俾我,我就唔認為你嘅"雙重標準"指控成立。
第二,我相信你對三位一體嘅質疑係"不全明能以/能夠相信",但我喺演化論及科學方法題目中從沒有包含"相信",我認為根本冇可比性,同雙重標準無關。
第三,更基本,關於雙重標準,你一年幾咁多都一直講唔到俾我聽其類比嘅準則,一時就話睇同,一時就話睇唔同,連喺構成
雙重標準嘅類比上嘅定義你都雙重標準,我唔認為你對我講出"雙重標準",係一個合理嘅質疑。你可能可以透過分析各個"雙重標準"時刻,更深入咁分析到其實"雙重標準"嘅構成,可能係有其他例如不同方面嘅關聯性等等等等,去涵蓋解釋返所有嘅時刻,咁不過你有冇,咁就冇法啦。
所以直到你定義到雙重標準,我係唔會理會你提出嘅"雙重標準"指控嘅,因為就算我承認左你一時嘅說法,以前同你落過嘅其他結論就可以被推翻,又係推倒重來,係冇意義嘅。我寧願相信我係同一個有思想體系嘅人談話,而唔係經常為左逞口舌之快次次要講贏人證明自己正確。

4.條link我冇興趣詳細研究,我只問你最淺層嘅問題,請問世俗既法院係依照科學方法抑或純邏輯去判決呢?請問法院的判決,如莊豐源案,是保證沒有邏輯謬誤嗎?請問你保證該判決沒有邏輯謬誤嗎?這是"訴諸權威"還是"公認知謬論"呢?
喺我有質疑你冇闡釋嘅情況下,你援引資料只屬於"訴諸權威謬誤"或"公認證論謬誤"

寫程式就不嬲係喺要一條單行道時望兩邊瞻前顧後,思想慎密啲寫嚴謹啲字多啲就好正常嘅。隨隨便便寫啲野出黎俾人求其三兩句就反駁到,就不如唔好寫。
咁你唔想討論咁嚴謹嚴肅,要隨便啲嘅咪出聲。你覺得你自己睇過啲引述啦,你已可以相信"演化論經過科學方法驗證"啦我冇需要再講再質疑啦你咪出聲。你唔講,我就唯有靠估,估估吓就嘥大家時間,不過我就覺得主要係你嘥我時間。

其他果啲乜野法律新聞程序,就只不過係指明邏輯思考嘅過程及原則,只屬輔助,你冇興趣睇我相信唔係點影響到你嘅結論,你唔睇就算。

你打幾段我都真係逐段同你分析回應你,咁你缺興趣做對等嘅野咪算囉。


話題要轉了嗎?
人地討論左一百年嘅野,一地資料,關於我提出嘅質疑你一啲資料都揾唔到,學而有術的你都揾唔到解答,我就好可以相信係冇人答過囉。

你從冇證據你自己有物理學、宇宙學、生物學、心理學、電腦學、人工智能學、神學嘅咩乜野PHD,咪一樣可以隨隨便便宣稱邊啲學科點點點。你啲咁嘅9upper,次次講論點俾我指出無數破綻又唔識兜,根本冇咩資格喺冇任何資料嘅情況底下指點我。

你自己無法去論說,只能訴諸權威去答我,就係你犯訴諸權威謬誤。犯訴諸權威謬誤嘅係你,唔係演化論本身。我就唔信地球上冇有識之士識得答我問題,不過你宜家就明顯唔係果類人。

你唔想去論,不屑去論,可以講明。我都成日同抽生講,"你覺得你自己睇過啲引述啦,你已可以相信'演化論經過科學方法驗證'啦我冇需要再講再質疑啦你咪出聲"。
從來就冇話唔俾人分享自己相信嘅野嘅,啲基督徒都時時分享,啲藍絲又係咁分享,不過咁當你遇到質疑嘅時候完全唔去解答對方,好似啲所謂上左腦洗左腦嘅死基基咁,就妄想可以說服人地相信自己個套啦。


話題要轉了嗎?
回覆 19# Guest from 124.244.37.x

冇問題,以後你對我提出乜野質疑我都可以咁答你。亦只顯示你冇能力回答質疑。
我們有思想自由,而錯誤思想都係自由的。
Guest from 182.239.122.x 發表於 2025/2/23 10:31


我不嬲都好尊重自由㗎,我只係話你知你嘅自由從來說服唔到人之嘛。我諗批評你都係屬於我嘅自由囉。
我都唔知你扯乜野,你回應唔到我嘅質疑係事實。
我從來冇事奉科學,我唔知你點得出我事奉科學。
你質疑我事奉兩者,你提出的質疑,你想研究,自己google又得,問 ChatGPT 或 Deepseek 都得,做咩要走黎問我?
我唔記得提你,#5嘅質疑係gemini話我知。


話題要轉了嗎?
回覆 26# Guest from 182.239.122.x

你痴線㗎,呢隻放置早幾年我打到唔知第幾多週目啦,部打機用嘅紅米我都唔知放左喺邊。你冇料唔識答,揾第二個啦。

咁啦,你打晒呢堆先同我再講啦好冇
https://gamingandgod.com/christian-video-games/

唔該你唔好咁搞笑啦,我腹筋就快由六位一體分開啦。
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個