揭破耶教面具- 創造論不堪一擊

【方舟子簡介】方舟子是一位生物化學家﹐專研分子遺傳學﹐於中國科技大學
取得細胞生物學學士﹐並在美國密歇根州立大學取得生物化學博士學位。曾在
University of Rochester和The Salk Institute for Biological Studies做博士後研究。其學
術著作見諸學刊如''The Journal of Biological Chemistry'',''Cell.



方先生是一位分子生物學家。請替我們介紹一下﹐分子生物學和創造論﹑
進化論有何關係﹖

◇﹕進化論遠在分子生物學建立之前﹐就已完全確立起來。分子生物學的發展
為進化論提供了全新的證據﹐進一步證明瞭進化論的正確﹑創造論的荒謬。比
如說﹐進化論的一個重要命題是﹕所有的生物都來自共同的祖先。分子生物學
揭示了所有的生物在分子水平上的高度一致性(相同的遺傳物質﹑遺傳密碼﹑
氨基酸組分等等)﹐從而證明瞭這個命題﹐並且可以通過比較蛋白質或基因序
列而定量地確定各個物種之間的親緣關係。分子生物學還發現﹐高等生物體內
絕大部份遺傳物質都是不起作用的“垃圾”﹐這只能解釋為是長期進化過程中
所積累下來的分子“化石”﹐表明生物體在分子水平上也不存在智能設計。


◆﹕你說生物的基因中有多餘的『垃圾基因』﹐請問如何能得知它們全無作用﹖
也許它們的作用不顯著呢﹖

◇﹕以“假基因”為例﹐我們知道它們全無作用﹐因為第一﹐如果把它們去掉﹐
對生物毫無影響﹔第二﹐我們將它們與“真基因”相比﹐知道它們是由於原來
的真基因發生了致命的突變而喪失了一切功能﹐從而排除了它們具有作用的可
能性。


你曾撰文(譯作)批判創造論者的學術態度﹐創造論者和反進化論者有發
表其論文於學術期刊嗎﹖學術界充滿批判﹐創造論是如此不堪一擊﹐為何仍有
『化學家』能堅持此論﹖

◇﹕進化論早已是科學界的一個共識﹐反進化論的論文是不可能在學術刊物上
發表的。Scott & Cole在1985年檢索了八十年代初的4000多種學術刊物﹐未發
現任何一篇神創論的論文。George W Gilchrist檢索了1997年五種學術期刊數
據庫﹐也未發現任何一篇神創論的論文
。事實上﹐現在的反進化論者也很有自
知之明﹐極少把自己的論文提交給學術刊物發表﹐而是在自辦的刊物上登出。
Scott & Cole曾調查了八十年代初68種與生物起源問題有關的學術刊物﹐發現
在總共135000篇送交的論文中﹐只有18篇是神創論的﹐這18篇後來全被拒絕。

有些科學家由於信奉原教旨的基督教﹐認定《聖經》所述準確無誤﹐所以無視
事實﹐而堅持神創論。但是他們肯定不敢在論文中持反進化論的觀點﹐否則那
樣的論文不可能被接受。他們只敢在非學術的場合才宣揚反進化論。


http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkshp/religion/00-08fang.htm
本帖最後由 khoroz 於 2011/8/1 21:32 編輯

回復 58# dye

first questions 1 & 2:
there r many possible meanings of a word, which cant be defined one-by-one in the Bible
people thought "24 hours" is the most possible meaning, so it was defined as 24 hours

the question should be all possible meanings of the words
本帖最後由 dye 於 2011/8/1 12:34 編輯

Here is food for thought:

1) How do you know the "someone" is better at herbew than the one that translate the current version(s) of bible?

2) Are you going to ask him to tanslate the whole book because if it can be incorrectly translated at one point, it can be incorrectly translated at other points.

3) Lastly, see what Gensis said.  There is is "morning" and there is "evening", what are you going to take of it in the definition of "day"?

While you are at it, don't forget
Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

A "day" is also "marked" by the sun, moon and stars too.  You will need change the meaning of that too!
回復  khoroz

Suppose day do not mean 24 hours, but X amount of time.
The same X amount of time ela ...
dye 發表於 2011/7/30 11:18


i think the day just refers to light but not a part of a day (the 24 hours one)
and night also

i better go to ask someone who know herbew
本帖最後由 dye 於 2011/7/30 11:23 編輯

回復 54# khoroz

Suppose day do not mean 24 hours, but X amount of time.
The same X amount of time elapsed from day 1 to day 2, and from day 2 to day 3, day 3 to day 4, etc.

And we know it is incorrect because the X from day 1 to day 2, and from day 2 to day 3, etc is vastly different.

Of course you can always say that the X just mean an indefinite amount of time ranging from 24 hours as it is clear from later passage with "days" to a few billion of years as in the beginning.

-----------------------
Gensis 1:3
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
----------------------

God himself has defined what he meant by "day".  The "evening" and "morning" part is repeated many times over in Genesis.  You may also need to re-define "evening" and "morning" too!
讀完創世紀, 天主不是要人相信第一日有光, 第三日造植物, 第四日造太陽月亮。
真理不在「第一日有光, 第三日造植物, 第四日造太陽月亮」。
beebeechan 發表於 2011/7/29 06:47


真理在你胡說八道的口齒上!
回復 41# beebeechan


sry not at home cant type Chinese
Genesis is written the word "day" like this but people later think the word represents the day which equals to 24 hours. and they defined "week" and the "resting day" (sry dont know what it calls)
你用另一角度去看創世舖排都幾好呀,相當對稱呀!但對稱唔代表一定是真理!
.
gbag05 發表於 2011/7/28 17:14



讀完創世紀, 天主不是要人相信第一日有光, 第三日造植物, 第四日造太陽月亮。
真理不在「第一日有光, 第三日造植物, 第四日造太陽月亮」。
本帖最後由 dior13dior13 於 2011/7/29 07:32 編輯

第一日:造光與暗,好像在聖經上寫的創世紀有西不同.....

聖經只有說:起出神創造天地。

地是空虛混沌,淵面黑暗;神的靈運行在水面上。

乃是指世界初創時, 地本來就是空虛混沌,淵面黑暗。
本帖最後由 dye 於 2011/7/28 17:36 編輯

Observe what scientist would have said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded

這位仁兄只用科學理性去理解這段經文, 當然矛盾處處哩.

我會用詩篇的角度來看整段的舖排:

你將創世分 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2011/7/27 22:19

''創世記之六日時間是由Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder研究科學和聖經的關係二十五年的結果''
我當然要用返科學理性去質疑啦!
你用另一角度去看創世舖排都幾好呀,相當對稱呀!但對稱唔代表一定是真理!
''作者是賴一篇詩歌來歌頌造物者''
咁究竟有幾多真係神默示,有幾多係作者自己覺得押韻寫落去呢?
創世記原來只是後人所作旳歌詞或詩編來表揚神的偉大,咁唔怪得之過唔到理性果關!
本帖最後由 dye 於 2011/7/28 16:39 編輯

That essay?  When it say evolution explaining the biogenesis (or abiogenesis), you know the person don't know what he is talking about!

Not well defined?  Or unable to accept it as a bronze-age myth?

I suppose you can always act like BBchan and read whatever he likes into people words.  In that sense, you can even read the Norse mythology as facts.

---------
It is a waste of time.  I think I am talking to a brick wall.
in tge holy bible, many words arent well defined, people started studying them and give diff views. somebody said it is a poem, and somebody wrote the essay ive given
Some Christians did and continue to read the myth as scientific facts.  They even try to force it in ...
dye 發表於 2011/7/28 01:16



Nope...I see you read Genesis as scientific facts more than Christians would read it as science facts.
Some Christians did and continue to read the myth as scientific facts.  They even try to force it into the society education system as science.

I just read it as a myth.
If you wish to read it as a poem, fine.  Just understand that it is far from known facts.  
.
dye 發表於 2011/7/28 00:55



I surely feel fine, because I actually read it as a poem.
You don't feel fine just becoz you read it as a science fact.
So......Dumb!
Forget about the number of day for the moment.  You think it is ONLY the number that is wrong?

Look at the order of events.  It is against scientific facts we already know.  The whole story is a myth, just like any other myths.

If you wish to read it as a poem, fine.  Just understand that it is far from known facts.  

What we already know happened is truly interesting.  The information is already available in many basic science courses.
第一日:造光與暗,日/夜         
第四日: 造太陽, 月, 星

如果無太陽, 邊有日/夜 ??
也許基教既信仰核心唔起呢到
不過近年開始多人留意呢D野(應該因為多咗人challege) ...
khoroz 發表於 2011/7/27 00:52



基教沒有什麼核心唔核心的..只要你信就可以..
呢個係一個只講quantity 唔講quality 既宗教黎.

不過近年開始多人留意呢D野(應該因為多咗人challege)
--> 梗係啦.. 有互聯綱人人都可以接觸多左資訊,仲會俾佢地老點咩
本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2011/7/27 22:34 編輯
回復  Guest from 220.246.61.x

原文的"日"應該是指一個時段
創世紀應該是這樣的:

1:1起初 神創造天地 ...
khoroz 發表於 2011/7/23 13:19


這點我不大同意啵
"日"若是指一個時段, 可長達一億幾千萬年的話, 
那安息日, 人豈不是要休息一億幾千萬年?
一日, 就是我們現在所指的一日
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個