G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 1 FRANCIS COLLINS
Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate.
I lead the Human Genome Project, which has now revealed all of the 3 billion
letters of our own DNA instruction book. I am also a Christian. For me
scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.
Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and
natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of
contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past,
and we should be careful not to do that now.
Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence. For me the
fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science but from
a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and
wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth. |
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 2 Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly
that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on
the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural
selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful
given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn
’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best
possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined. |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 3 thanks for sharing.
absolutely
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: FRANCIS COLLINS
: Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
: I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
: tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
: wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
: and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
: mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
: who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
: evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
: elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 4 So, do you support evolution now as Francis Collins said or are you still
against it?
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: thanks for sharing.
:
: absolutely
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 5
I support the posting of serious artiles on the subject of sciecne vs.
religion, from either non-believers or believers.
I agree with Francis Collins' view on science & religion in general --
Religion (Gensis in the Bible) explains the why and Science (whatever God
reveals to us thru scientific research) explains the how.
I am not convinced that "evolution" theory & theory on origin of life is
proven beyond reasonable doubts. If they were, there won't be funding for
research in these areas. Regardless, there are underlying assumptions for
each scientific theory, and it takes some "faith" to accept these
assumptions -- in the case of origin of life /"evolution" theory, its the "chance" of random variations lead to an extreme complex system.
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: So, do you support evolution now as Francis Collins said or are you still
: against it?
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 6 I appreciate your long post, I take it that your elaborated answer means you don't agree with Francis Collins, a fellow Christian, with his statement below.
Francis Collins: "Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles
of variation and
natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
divine intervention."
I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you'
d accept the opinion of experts in the field. I think this is a good advice
. So, as such, a christian who is not an expert in Biology and evolution
can now accept evolution with confidence.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: I support the posting of serious artiles on the subject of sciecne vs.
: religion, from either non-believers or believers.
: I agree with Francis Collins' view on science & religion in general --
: Religion (Gensis in the Bible) explains the why and Science (whatever God
: reveals to us thru scientific research) explains the how.
: I am not convinced that "evolution" theory & theory on origin of life is
: proven beyond reasonable doubts. If they were, there won't be funding for
: research in these areas. Regardless, there are underlying assumptions for
: each scientific theory, and it takes some "faith" to accept these
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 7 人家開玩笑的，她不會接受生物學家都接受的進化論的。
post.
with
that
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: I appreciate your long post, I take it that your elaborated answer means you don't agree with Francis Collins, a fellow Christian, with his statement below.
: Francis Collins: "Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles
: of variation and
: natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
: ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
: this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
: present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
: every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
: the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
: divine intervention."
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 8 "I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you
'd accept the opinion of experts in the field." |
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 9 :)
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
: 人家開玩笑的，她不會接受生物學家都接受的進化論的。
:
: post.
: with
: that
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 10
還有，你如果問她讀過什麼進化論，她一定不回答，拿進化論資料
給她看，她會說沒興趣。
littletshirt,
說這實話，不算 harassment 吧？
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: :)
|
|
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 11 You are confusing concepts again! Science doesn't need faith. For example,
people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory comes out
with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other theory.
Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two. Please do
not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
you
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: "I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you
: 'd accept the opinion of experts in the field."
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 12
example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
reasoning => Religion
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You are confusing concepts again! Science doesn't need faith. For example,
: people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory comes out
: with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other theory.
: Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two. Please do
: not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
:
: you
|
T*******r
发帖数: 333 | 13 呵呵，你又来宣扬你的科学与信仰“相容”的错误理论了。
科学与信仰的本质区别有很多，重要的一条就是“可证伪性”。
你的表述就类似比较了一大堆猫和老虎的相似之处，然后就宣称猫和老虎没有区别。
知道你的逻辑错误在什么地方吗？只看相似的地方，故意忽略不同之处，当然会得出两
者相似的错误结论。
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
: comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
: theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
: Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
: underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
: measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
: belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
: reasoning => Religion
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 14 You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
: comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
: theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
: Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
: underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
: measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
: belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
: reasoning => Religion
|
B******y
发帖数: 2255 | 15 Can you provide any scientific proof of the origin of DNA through evolution?
I mean any process in lab/nature to demonstrate the origin of DNA code, not
a theory guessing DNA formed by evolution?
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 16 Sorry, the question you asked is wrong. Evolution is not suppose to explain
the origin of DNA. You should re-phrase your question. Perhaps you are
asking about the origin of life.
Btw, if you are proposing Creationism as an explaination, are you willing to
subject it to the same critique you have for the theory of Evolution?
Actually, I'd just settle for the same critique all other scientific
hypotheses face when they are proposed.
evolution?
not
【在 B******y 的大作中提到】
: Can you provide any scientific proof of the origin of DNA through evolution?
: I mean any process in lab/nature to demonstrate the origin of DNA code, not
: a theory guessing DNA formed by evolution?
|
B******y
发帖数: 2255 | 17 俺尊重Francis的理解。
不过放在本版，俺用各位飞机朋友常用的两类典型回答回答下：
1.抬出Francis有点拉虎皮扯大旗, 抬出名人为自己壮胆.
2.典型从众心理, 人多就说明真理吗?
absolutely
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: FRANCIS COLLINS
: Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
: I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
: tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
: wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
: and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
: mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
: who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
: evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
: elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 18 要吗你是新来的吧，要吗你是要打humanoid的耳光：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/TrustInJesus/688505_3.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/TrustInJesus/689361.html
【在 B******y 的大作中提到】
: 俺尊重Francis的理解。
: 不过放在本版，俺用各位飞机朋友常用的两类典型回答回答下：
: 1.抬出Francis有点拉虎皮扯大旗, 抬出名人为自己壮胆.
: 2.典型从众心理, 人多就说明真理吗?
:
: absolutely
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 19
religion & science are complementary, not conflicting.
religion doesn't need to have all the attributes (“可证伪性” i.e) of
science.
As to the original of life, it is a unique sequence of historical events
that IMHO, so any theory/hypothesis about it can't be thoroughly tested/
repeated in controlled environments to prove or disprove ( Please don't cite
computer simulations since you can design the simulation to tell the story
that you want to hear). But you can always accept those with a leap of faith.
【在 T*******r 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，你又来宣扬你的科学与信仰“相容”的错误理论了。
: 科学与信仰的本质区别有很多，重要的一条就是“可证伪性”。
: 你的表述就类似比较了一大堆猫和老虎的相似之处，然后就宣称猫和老虎没有区别。
: 知道你的逻辑错误在什么地方吗？只看相似的地方，故意忽略不同之处，当然会得出两
: 者相似的错误结论。
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 20
so now we agree upon the assumption/faith foundation for science/religion,
and you decided to switch target?
As to my "mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion." You
are right & wrong.
For lay Christians, Bible emphasizes more on the daily experiencing of Jesus
Christ and less on the theological knowledge. Justification is by Faith, not by knowledge. "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved".
That said, theology-related subject may involve lots of logic & reasoning. For example, Gödel's ontological proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
Our ignorance of an entity doesn't serve as proof of the nonexistence of the entity.
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
|
|
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 21 I didn't switch any target. If your statement has error(s) in its premise
to start with, how can I agree or disagree with it.
Jesus
not by
I have to say, it's a pretty bad job of emphasizing when all you got are
some second/third hand anonymous stories of the person you want to emphasize
. Are there any first hand writing, recording, video? Are these beyond the
ability of Jesus?
For
Are you saying this ontological proof proved the existance of the Biblical
God?
the entity.
If an entity is all-powerful, then yes, our ignorance of that entity who is
suppose to be all-powerful can serve as a proof of the nonexistence or such
de facto equivalent of that entity.
Jesus
not by knowledge. "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved
".
For example, Gödel's ontological proof.
the entity. |
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 22 FRANCIS COLLINS
Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate.
I lead the Human Genome Project, which has now revealed all of the 3 billion
letters of our own DNA instruction book. I am also a Christian. For me
scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.
Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and
natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of
contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past,
and we should be careful not to do that now.
Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence. For me the
fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science but from
a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and
wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth. |
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 23 Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly
that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on
the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural
selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful
given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn
’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best
possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined. |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 24 thanks for sharing.
absolutely
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: FRANCIS COLLINS
: Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
: I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
: tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
: wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
: and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
: mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
: who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
: evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
: elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 25 So, do you support evolution now as Francis Collins said or are you still
against it?
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: thanks for sharing.
:
: absolutely
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 26
I support the posting of serious artiles on the subject of sciecne vs.
religion, from either non-believers or believers.
I agree with Francis Collins' view on science & religion in general --
Religion (Gensis in the Bible) explains the why and Science (whatever God
reveals to us thru scientific research) explains the how.
I am not convinced that "evolution" theory & theory on origin of life is
proven beyond reasonable doubts. If they were, there won't be funding for
research in these areas. Regardless, there are underlying assumptions for
each scientific theory, and it takes some "faith" to accept these
assumptions -- in the case of origin of life /"evolution" theory, its the "chance" of random variations lead to an extreme complex system.
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: So, do you support evolution now as Francis Collins said or are you still
: against it?
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 27 I appreciate your long post, I take it that your elaborated answer means you don't agree with Francis Collins, a fellow Christian, with his statement below.
Francis Collins: "Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles
of variation and
natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
divine intervention."
I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you'
d accept the opinion of experts in the field. I think this is a good advice
. So, as such, a christian who is not an expert in Biology and evolution
can now accept evolution with confidence.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: I support the posting of serious artiles on the subject of sciecne vs.
: religion, from either non-believers or believers.
: I agree with Francis Collins' view on science & religion in general --
: Religion (Gensis in the Bible) explains the why and Science (whatever God
: reveals to us thru scientific research) explains the how.
: I am not convinced that "evolution" theory & theory on origin of life is
: proven beyond reasonable doubts. If they were, there won't be funding for
: research in these areas. Regardless, there are underlying assumptions for
: each scientific theory, and it takes some "faith" to accept these
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 28 人家開玩笑的，她不會接受生物學家都接受的進化論的。
post.
with
that
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: I appreciate your long post, I take it that your elaborated answer means you don't agree with Francis Collins, a fellow Christian, with his statement below.
: Francis Collins: "Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles
: of variation and
: natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common
: ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that
: this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms
: present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out
: every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in
: the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require
: divine intervention."
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 29 "I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you
'd accept the opinion of experts in the field." |
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 30 :)
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
: 人家開玩笑的，她不會接受生物學家都接受的進化論的。
:
: post.
: with
: that
|
|
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 31
還有，你如果問她讀過什麼進化論，她一定不回答，拿進化論資料
給她看，她會說沒興趣。
littletshirt,
說這實話，不算 harassment 吧？
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: :)
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 32 You are confusing concepts again! Science doesn't need faith. For example,
people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory comes out
with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other theory.
Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two. Please do
not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
you
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: "I think you advocated before that if you are not familiar with a field, you
: 'd accept the opinion of experts in the field."
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 33
example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
reasoning => Religion
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You are confusing concepts again! Science doesn't need faith. For example,
: people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory comes out
: with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other theory.
: Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two. Please do
: not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
:
: you
|
T*******r
发帖数: 333 | 34 呵呵，你又来宣扬你的科学与信仰“相容”的错误理论了。
科学与信仰的本质区别有很多，重要的一条就是“可证伪性”。
你的表述就类似比较了一大堆猫和老虎的相似之处，然后就宣称猫和老虎没有区别。
知道你的逻辑错误在什么地方吗？只看相似的地方，故意忽略不同之处，当然会得出两
者相似的错误结论。
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
: comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
: theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
: Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
: underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
: measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
: belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
: reasoning => Religion
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 35 You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: example, people accept a scientific theory, then if a contradictory theory
: comes out with more supporting evidence, then people will accept the other
: theory. Religion doesn't work this way. So please do not mix the two.
: Please do not insinuate that science uses "faith-based acceptance".
: underlying assumption/hypothesis + limited empirical evidence with
: measurement errors + logic/reasoning => scientific theory
: belief/faith + limited empirical evidence/subjective experiences + logic/
: reasoning => Religion
|
B******y
发帖数: 2255 | 36 Can you provide any scientific proof of the origin of DNA through evolution?
I mean any process in lab/nature to demonstrate the origin of DNA code, not
a theory guessing DNA formed by evolution?
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 37 Sorry, the question you asked is wrong. Evolution is not suppose to explain
the origin of DNA. You should re-phrase your question. Perhaps you are
asking about the origin of life.
Btw, if you are proposing Creationism as an explaination, are you willing to
subject it to the same critique you have for the theory of Evolution?
Actually, I'd just settle for the same critique all other scientific
hypotheses face when they are proposed.
evolution?
not
【在 B******y 的大作中提到】
: Can you provide any scientific proof of the origin of DNA through evolution?
: I mean any process in lab/nature to demonstrate the origin of DNA code, not
: a theory guessing DNA formed by evolution?
|
B******y
发帖数: 2255 | 38 俺尊重Francis的理解。
不过放在本版，俺用各位飞机朋友常用的两类典型回答回答下：
1.抬出Francis有点拉虎皮扯大旗, 抬出名人为自己壮胆.
2.典型从众心理, 人多就说明真理吗?
absolutely
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: FRANCIS COLLINS
: Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
: I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science
: tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the
: wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful
: and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The
: mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and
: who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of
: evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely
: elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 39 要吗你是新来的吧，要吗你是要打humanoid的耳光：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/TrustInJesus/688505_3.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/TrustInJesus/689361.html
【在 B******y 的大作中提到】
: 俺尊重Francis的理解。
: 不过放在本版，俺用各位飞机朋友常用的两类典型回答回答下：
: 1.抬出Francis有点拉虎皮扯大旗, 抬出名人为自己壮胆.
: 2.典型从众心理, 人多就说明真理吗?
:
: absolutely
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 40
religion & science are complementary, not conflicting.
religion doesn't need to have all the attributes (“可证伪性” i.e) of
science.
As to the original of life, it is a unique sequence of historical events
that IMHO, so any theory/hypothesis about it can't be thoroughly tested/
repeated in controlled environments to prove or disprove ( Please don't cite
computer simulations since you can design the simulation to tell the story
that you want to hear). But you can always accept those with a leap of faith.
【在 T*******r 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，你又来宣扬你的科学与信仰“相容”的错误理论了。
: 科学与信仰的本质区别有很多，重要的一条就是“可证伪性”。
: 你的表述就类似比较了一大堆猫和老虎的相似之处，然后就宣称猫和老虎没有区别。
: 知道你的逻辑错误在什么地方吗？只看相似的地方，故意忽略不同之处，当然会得出两
: 者相似的错误结论。
|
|
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 41
so now we agree upon the assumption/faith foundation for science/religion,
and you decided to switch target?
As to my "mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion." You
are right & wrong.
For lay Christians, Bible emphasizes more on the daily experiencing of Jesus
Christ and less on the theological knowledge. Justification is by Faith, not by knowledge. "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved".
That said, theology-related subject may involve lots of logic & reasoning. For example, Gödel's ontological proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
Our ignorance of an entity doesn't serve as proof of the nonexistence of the entity.
【在 s*y 的大作中提到】
: You mistakenly put logic/reasoning in the formula for religion.
|
s*y
发帖数: 933 | 42 I didn't switch any target. If your statement has error(s) in its premise
to start with, how can I agree or disagree with it.
Jesus
not by
I have to say, it's a pretty bad job of emphasizing when all you got are
some second/third hand anonymous stories of the person you want to emphasize
. Are there any first hand writing, recording, video? Are these beyond the
ability of Jesus?
For
Are you saying this ontological proof proved the existance of the Biblical
God?
the entity.
If an entity is all-powerful, then yes, our ignorance of that entity who is
suppose to be all-powerful can serve as a proof of the nonexistence or such
de facto equivalent of that entity.
Jesus
not by knowledge. "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved
".
For example, Gödel's ontological proof.
the entity. |
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | |
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 44 谢谢。我也不是什么狗屁粉丝。他的意见可以作为参考。
目前专业知识不足，没有什么可评论的。
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: 顶起来给Collins的粉丝看看他的具体主张
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 45
別過度謙虛，你可以否定進化論，一定是專業知識很足的。
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢。我也不是什么狗屁粉丝。他的意见可以作为参考。
: 目前专业知识不足，没有什么可评论的。
|
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 46 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
:
: 別過度謙虛，你可以否定進化論，一定是專業知識很足的。
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 47
你否定進化論嗎？
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
|
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 48 No support, no objection at this moment.
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
:
: 你否定進化論嗎？
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 49
你認為有可能人類是進化出來的，而不是神用泥土捏出來的？
完全持開放態度？
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: No support, no objection at this moment.
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | |
|
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 51
humanoid 又贴了一遍Collins，这回肯定是支持了。
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
|
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 52 哈哈
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
:
: humanoid 又贴了一遍Collins，这回肯定是支持了。
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | |
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 54 谢谢。我也不是什么狗屁粉丝。他的意见可以作为参考。
目前专业知识不足，没有什么可评论的。
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: 顶起来给Collins的粉丝看看他的具体主张
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 55
別過度謙虛，你可以否定進化論，一定是專業知識很足的。
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢。我也不是什么狗屁粉丝。他的意见可以作为参考。
: 目前专业知识不足，没有什么可评论的。
|
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 56 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
:
: 別過度謙虛，你可以否定進化論，一定是專業知識很足的。
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 57
你否定進化論嗎？
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
|
h******d
发帖数: 1891 | 58 No support, no objection at this moment.
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
:
: 你否定進化論嗎？
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 59
你認為有可能人類是進化出來的，而不是神用泥土捏出來的？
完全持開放態度？
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: No support, no objection at this moment.
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | |
|
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 61
humanoid 又贴了一遍Collins，这回肯定是支持了。
【在 h******d 的大作中提到】
: 没有。以前生物一窍不通。现在在搞一点生物信息学，了解多了一点是真的。
|
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 62 哈哈
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
:
: humanoid 又贴了一遍Collins，这回肯定是支持了。
|
J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | |
