| < [1] 2 [3] > |
對於2D電影的主角而言，身在三度空間中的編劇，便是那創造該漫電影的創造主！ 這你應該承認吧！ 為何電影裡的宗教，一定不是拜編劇的?  | |
| |
進化論唔係個個都明既.. 至少有點科學推論常識既人先會明.. 佢認同創造論係神話都算幾smart.. 好過d 基基.. 當係事實. | |
你該讀讀 abiogenesis，假如好似你三言兩語講得完就不是科學了 有機物原生份子其實都溶入水中，所以你話甚麼掉到水實在是無知 | |
對了... 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 Oro | |
Evolution is NOT a theory about the origin of life, then evolutionists please shut up. None of the ... At least abiogenesis and evolution produced results and the latter enable development of vaccines, drugs and applied in agriculture -- Creationism ? no application that benefit human except for you people to masterbate about | |
我們的科學在這幾百年是不斷的出新的驗證, 不斷的推翻反從前的驗證, 例如從前人驗證了用刀切碎物件, 不斷的 ... 這些科學驗證確認了理論的預測，觀測到理論說會發現到的現象, 這些現象就是科學事實 | |
我相信科學證實眼見的事情, 不會迷信如估計出來的"驗證", If everything in science has to be directly observed, then sciences like astrophysics, eletromagnetism will be gone -- don't talk about science unless you know what is the scientific method....you are so ignorant yet think you can lecture others about science.... | |
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 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, .. | |
====================================================== 但若insist要的話, 整幾條蟲蟲出來玩都唔係唔得嘅 http://www.economist.com/node/16163006  蟲蟲玉照 好心您訂閱Science期刋, 消息唔會咁背嘛 | |
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. (And it is not random chance, please see the misconception part again) --------- And chance do not come into the question because we are only invited to see this one "experiment of life". We do not know how many others are out there (if any). BB chan is making a elementary statistical mistake. --------- Scientist only need to show it is possible (no matter how slim) for the molecule to form into a replicating molecule. RNA, DNA, many molecules will do. The real debate is exactly which molecule(s) and exactly by which method(s). | |
I think BB chan miss the point. Evolution explains it after the first "replicating molecule" Don't tell me how it happens after. That won't interest me. Tell me how it happens at the first place. | |
(And it is not random chance, please see the misconception part again) Things that are not random would imply a designer. Are you going to tell me this? | |
I think BB chan miss the point. Evolution explains it after the first "replicating molecule" It has been explained by has not been proved. Life is also explained by creationlists, by has not been proved. The same. | |
Scientist only need to show it is possible (no matter how slim) 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. | |
Life is also explained by creationlists creationlists -- no such word. | |
Never mind, evolution has been deadly admitted by the Bible. | |
creationlists -- no such word. Maybe he's really referring to the list of stuff he had came up with? | |
這個問題根本不值一想，不如管理好我們的生活、解決全人類的温飽才想這個問題... 不要像那些爭持創造論和進化論的人們那樣浪費時間！ | |
叫人不要像那些爭持創造論和進化論的人們那樣浪費時間也很浪費時間,大家不如管理好我們的生活、解決全人類的温飽才想這個問題... |
| < [1] 2 [3] > |
