flymousetw wrote:
人類的DNA 有99...(恕刪)
我只能說，相似度已經那麼高了，但人是人，金剛還是金剛，
你要說這是演化的痕跡？
我不大會這樣想，什麼叫有靈的活人？供閣下朝這個角度參考思量一下！
個人積分：12分
文章編號：18500787
個人積分：1分
文章編號：18501465
diapason wrote:
什麼時候像我這樣一個鄉民的臆測，需要大費周章跟你舉證了???
連老美都說沒外星人了，我這樣一個卑微的鄉民如何說服你???
你一定要我說外星人的介入是屬於科學還是神學，我就大發慈悲的告訴你吧:是一種行為，行為是屬於科學還是神學??就像我唱歌是一種科學還是神學?就是行為而已嘛!
如果，真的有外星文明介入這件事(再說一次，如果)，很多理論就有修正的空間，甚至得到補正的依據，宗教敎條是否也可以稍稍做一點讓步呢??還是說，宗教教條是宇宙通行的法則，不容質疑?(再說第二次，如果)
因為許多的演化的研究來自古代生物化石，沒有留下的歷史證據或化石的部分可能就是演化斷層的關鍵答案，不過因為太多關鍵證據尚未尋得，所以才會有推論這件事。
我之前不是說:科學的終點是宗教，宗教的終點是科學嗎??為什麼一點點外星文明的假設就非要我說他是神學或科學呢??又為什麼您說"神是不可驗證的我不會要求神存在的證據"，我們就不能要求提證呢???
我都已經假設外星文明介入的情況
給機會說服我讓我相信
你還是無法回答
老扯啥米連老美都說沒外星人...
還有你到底有沒有搞清楚
神創論的基礎就建立在神不可也不需驗證
如果不先接受這個基本概念
如何質疑以及挑戰神創論?
還是你以為演化論只以叫神出來見個面這點來挑戰存在已久的神創論?
那你傾向的外星文明介入說的基本論點呢?
0!!!!
既然你表明外星文明說只是一種行為
就說明外星文明介入說根本沒有基本理論來支持
那我也只能從你的發言中認為這是偽科學+假神學的綜合行為
不值得認識及討論
個人積分：0分
文章編號：18505584
個人積分：0分
文章編號：18505957
個人積分：6分
文章編號：18507504
流浪地圖 wrote:
不過我接受演化論跟神創論一起討論，畢竟這個世界不是我們想像中這麼簡單的。
問題是相信神創論的人(如前面的enochhuang兄)，
認為演化論與神創論是相衝突、無法並立的。
相較之下，
接受演化論的人，
倒是普遍持較開放的態度。
************************
人類對於未知、無法證實的事物，
例如：明天台灣會不會發生大地震？
可以運用手頭上的資源與自己的經驗進行預測，
做出會／不會 的推論。
但不能因為無法證實，
就硬說一定會(或一定不會)發生。
所以對於未知事物正確的態度，
應該是"持保留態度"。
把這公式套用到別的例子：
人類對於未知、無法證實的造物主的存在，
可以運用手頭上的資源與自己的經驗進行推測，
做出有／沒有 的推論。
但不能因為無法證實，
就硬說一定有(或一定沒有)造物主的存在。
所以對於未知的造物主正確的態度，
應該是"持保留態度"。
硬要說一定有的神創論者，
與硬要說一定沒有的無神論者，
你們要如何抱持你們的信念是你們個人的自由，
但指責別人前，請別忘了基本的邏輯..
面對。接受。處理。放下。
個人積分：63分
文章編號：18507972
個人積分：63分
文章編號：18508098
個人積分：10分
文章編號：18509321
enochhuang wrote:
有的人需要忍受新生兒可能到兩歲都還沒辦法睡過夜(恕刪)
這是甚麼東西? 接受神創論就可以睡隔夜的意思嗎? 我想很多理論無法被接受, 是因為本身就沒有嚴謹的邏輯, 或者說闡述理論的人, 條理不清說不明白, 沒有推論過程, 只有結果. 無法同意的原因是, 任何人都可以創一個神話, 利用這個原理去操控別人, 大家都知道宗教如何可以斂財甚至控制人的思想跟生命. 一般人沒有辦法分辨事實, 因此科學是有必要存在的.
演化是觀察而得的結果, 也就是說萬物的確是有演化的現象, 大家都解釋很多了. 至於可以把它拿來當生命的起源的解釋嗎? 我是認為可能資料還不夠, 而且外星人的介入也的確無法排除, 但是科學以外的範疇既無法探討, 也難以由討論而進步(因為答案已經出現, 全都是神, 或全是外星人) 所以我也認為應該純粹就演化來討論, 增長大家的知識, 而不需討論一些"我們已經知道, 但無法驗證的"
個人積分：25分
文章編號：18509445
enochhuang wrote:
首先，有人提出「演化論是闡述物種變化的理論，而不是解釋生命起源的理論。」，即便這和演化論的始祖達爾文發表的初衷是相違背的，達爾文發表初衷正是為了解釋生命起源。但是進代演化論的演變造成後來丟棄掉原來的初衷，而只限於解釋某個現狀的說法，我們也繼續照此範籌走好了。
你可能要讀一下On the Origin of Species的Introduction。以下是節錄：
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html
On the Origin of Species
Introduction
第一段：
WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.
CD的主旨是「物種起源」而非「生命起源」
一、他是用「species」，不是「life」
二、他是從南美上的「生物的分佈」得出靈感
第五段：
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species . Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration . Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c., as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions , the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.
CD
一、反對「各物種被獨立創造」出來的論點
二、論證「物種以類似變體的形式從其他物種繁衍出來」的論點
三、反對「外在因素為物種變化的唯一因素」
第六段：
The author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' would, I presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.
針對「異質物種突然自原物種生出」的論點，達爾文認為不夠究竟
他認為該論點根本不足以稱為是一種解釋
末段：
No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species . Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.
一、CD認為經過嚴謹的研究和客觀的判斷後，他和其他學者本來的觀點（創造論）會被證明是錯的
二、CD認為物種不是不可變的
三、CD認為時間軸上異質物種間的變化和繁衍和「物種內的繁衍和變化」是「大致相同」的
個人積分：86分
文章編號：18509538
