beebeechan

I can't emphasis enough.  Please learn what is evolution before arguing about it.


Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin.

dye 發表於 2010/8/12 00:39

Evolution is NOT a theory about the origin of life, then evolutionists please shut up. None of their business here.
You, dye, do tell me a science that can tell me about the ORIGIN OF LIFE and stop telling me how life evolves from what to what.

beebeechan

那一科叫「Abiogenesis」，「無生源論」。

只要有一點點生命，進化論便會TAKE OVER，「創造」其他所有生命 ...
dye 發表於 2010/8/12 11:58

對了...
無生源論比演化...更神話囉

係要更大的信心先可以信到

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan


    如果說生命是由創造主創造出來，下一題就是要問創造主的來源了。 ...
抽刀斷水 發表於 2010/8/12 12:10

搞定了第一步先搞第二步哩
連 「生命是由創造主創造出來」 還未有共識。
未學行, 先學走?

beebeechan

就像是聖經裡的太陽與大地之間的關係一般，古時候的神職人員解讀聖經後，堅持太陽繞地說！而且堅持大地是四方平面的！也因此以異端之邪說，來打壓不同說法之當時基督教界的科學家們。
.
eagle_wu 發表於 2010/8/12 18:19

古時的人以地球為中心, 那太陽繁星便繞地運行。
後來人以太陽為中心, 那地球行星便繞日而行。
今日人會以銀河系某一點為中心, 那太陽, 地球, 繁星都不是繞著那中心點行嗎? 那地球繞日也不是百份百無誤了, 因為同時也繞那中心點。

今日的天文台會用「日出」, 「日落」時間是若干....
嚴格上仍是日繞地的說法, 以觀察者為中心的講法。
不是說 「地球背向太陽時間」, 「地球面向太陽時間」

beebeechan

最少 abiogenesis 能演示基本原理、在實驗室重複到，神創就一點原理也無
e.g. Miller Experiment, Juan Or ...
大黃傻貓 發表於 2010/8/13 17:54

1960年代﹐Juan Oro 的實驗﹐把氰與亞摩尼亞這兩種原始大氣很多的份子放在溶液﹐結果產生了DNA核酸的一個基礎份子 Adenine
這個發現是重要的突破﹐

人只是開始認識天主造生命的材料.
至於怎樣造, 一無所知. 人也造不出來, 不能重演.
Juan Oro 的實驗不能造出一個生物來。

鬼唔知月餅係用糖, 蓮子, 旦黃, 麵粉黎造架咩
有齊呢幾樣材料不等如你會造得出一個月餅

我亦不會相信我擺糖, 蓮子, 旦黃, 麵粉係檯上..便會隨機地走出一個月餅來.

人可以造航母, 穿梭機或複雜的機器, 但就造唔出一個單細胞, 一條虫, ..

beebeechan

I think BB chan miss the point.  Evolution explains it after the first "replicating molecule"

So,  ...
dye 發表於 2010/8/13 22:43

Don't tell me how it happens after. That won't interest me.
Tell me how it happens at the first place.

beebeechan

(And it is not random chance, please see the misconception part again)

dye 發表於 2010/8/13 22:43

Things that are not random would imply a designer.
Are you going to tell me this?

beebeechan

I think BB chan miss the point.  Evolution explains it after the first "replicating molecule"

So, 單細胞, 一條虫 is explained by evolution already.
So,  ...
dye 發表於 2010/8/13 22:43

It has been explained by has not been proved.

Life is also explained by creationlists, by has not been proved. The same.

beebeechan

Scientist only need to show it is possible (no matter how slim)

dye 發表於 2010/8/13 22:43

The point is : the chance is so slim that it is hardly possible.
For the same token, creation is also possible although it appears so impossible.