说 Dr. Waggoner 是一位勇敢的学者是因为他那样的表态无疑会使他在进化论学者中难以立足 - 此事关乎他的事业前途。
好笑的基督教
- 主题发起人 terry890
- 开始时间
说 Dr. Waggoner 是一位勇敢的学者是因为他那样的表态无疑会使他在进化论学者中难以立足 - 此事关乎他的事业前途。
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/creation-vs-evolution-debate.html
Kent Hovind vs. Ben Waggoner
Okay, this one's the best creation vs evolution debate I've ever seen. You'll love this!
Hovind's interesting, but in this case, Dr. Ben Waggoner is just as—perhaps more—interesting. Don't be fooled by Waggoner's introduction! Think of it as a snake coiling.
In fact, at the 1 hour, 26 minute mark, I noticed that Dr. Waggoner had gotten Hovind's goat. It's really the first time I've ever seen the remarkably calm Kent Hovind get irritated in a creation vs evolution debate.
You'll also notice that the video's not unbiased. Only Hovind's slides are shown .
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
您声称了N回自己是科学盲，半数理化盲，自己一定要戴这么个帽子，可不是什么人给扣的。
一会儿没能力做判断，一会儿又能证明了。到底能不能判断和证明啊？科学家说的您看不懂没能力判断，神学家引用一下就看懂了能证明了。真的是神的逻辑啊。
科学盲 -- 头脑里仅有很少的科学知识，所以俺假设自己没有能力去直接判断一个“科学结论”。更加准确一点讲，作为科学盲，俺对科学理论有能够说服自己的判断力，但不会直接将自己的判断作为和别人讨论的依据
证明进化论是一个信仰，不是事实 -- 通过列举真正的科学家的观点，“证明”同源进化极不成熟，对关键证据存在巨大的分歧。整体可能处于猜想阶段，但是科学界却认为它“不可置疑”，所以是基于偏见上的信仰
找这些证据，窃以为除了基本的Google技能，不需要任何科学知识或者数理化的背景；不甚明白有何矛盾或者可笑之处
另外，就某些单一问题，俺以为科学盲临时抱佛脚从Google上通过多个观点的查证、学习，有可能比non-科学盲N年前从“单一渠道”学习到的半吊子的、陈旧“知识”更加靠谱
另外，此楼俺提到或者引用了哪位“神学家”的东西？
I am not sure if you watched any part of the video yourself or not. I would like to suggest you or any other friends who are interested in the matter but don't have time for a lengthy presentation to watch the following sections:
1) 0:01 to 0:08 (Dr. Waggoner's opening where he made a genuine confession, which was applauded by the friendly audience)
2) 1:18 to 1:30 (I saw a confident Kent presenting the best part of his argument in this period)
3) 1:59 to 2:18 (Dr. Waggoner's closing plus some interesting and heated exchanges between the two).
If you watch the whole video, you will find Dr. Waggoner's points were presented without any interruption.
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
不好意思还真看了。:blowzy:借阿Q的话，那个KH就是一个科学盲。
不好意思还真看了。:blowzy:借阿Q的话，那个KH就是一个科学盲。
Wow! This courageous statement of yours makes me speechless.
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
Wow! This courageous statement of yours makes me speechless.
他又不是上帝的代言人，说他需要神马卡瑞机？他整个一个以偏概全、诡辩连篇的小丑。克牧师，圣经里讲过地球是圆的吗？说过地球绕太阳转了吗？那哥白尼伽里略的在瞎折腾些啥啊？
根本不存在什么进化论的大本营。科学家不是教会，没有集中在哪里唯谁马首是瞻，所谓什么大本营，最好的进化论学家，是你们这些人给封的，只不过意淫一下，让人误以为您端过什么人并不存在的老窝
。您只要一用中文讲自己对科学或进化论的观点，就暴露出根本就不清楚科学和进化论是什么，只敢躲在英文里，贴出来的和声称的内容驴唇不对马嘴。人家科学家在讨论某些细节上的进化路线，看看谁和谁在什么时候同什么源，被你给说成质疑进化论，否定有过同源。如果要画出整个进化树，化石当然有缺失，但你贴的东西里，人家没有质疑这棵树的存在，何况新的化石证据每年都有。
比如说这个“同源进化”，就是你搞出来的东西，你有没有胆用中文给讲一遍什么叫同源进化，对应的英文词是什么？讲讲有没有不同源进化，有没有同源不进化？
不预定立场、从下往上, 也是你自己搞的“科学原则”，许多科学理论是要有前提条件，科学是从上往下结合从下往上，没有哪个服从哪个。
为什么要预设上帝不存在？这也是你自己杜撰出来的“科学原则”。人家科学家没预设过上帝不存在。
你自己搞出来的“科学原则”太多，太不靠谱，还想拿什么科学原则说事呢？无非就是贴点进化论的大字报，把量灌足。
他又不是上帝的代言人，说他需要神马卡瑞机？他整个一个以偏概全、诡辩连篇的小丑。克牧师，圣经里讲过地球是圆的吗？说过地球绕太阳转了吗？那哥白尼伽里略的在瞎折腾些啥啊？
Please do feel free to say whatever you like.
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
Please do feel free to say whatever you like.
I like the other guy's 传福音 the other day in another thread. 宗教就说宗教的事儿，在人们还没搞清灵魂、生命的根本之前，就别和科学掺糊了。越搅越糊
That's exactly the point of KH. Evolution Theory is a religion and public money should not be used to sponsor it. It is as simple as that.
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
Please do feel free to say whatever you like.
白泽为，你那位DrKH说，圣经里说过一句＂the circle of earth＂证明圣经明确指出过地球是圆的。以前人们说地球是平的那是对圣经的理解不够透彻。
你说圣经里有没有提到广义相对论和量子理论？一个超宏观一个超微观，这些也许更接近世界本相，比告诉大家地球是圆的更民富一些吧？
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,763
- 荣誉分数
- 23,535
- 声望点数
- 1,373
That's exactly the point of KH. Evolution Theory is a religion and public money should not be used to sponsor it. It is as simple as that.
That's bs
he can refuse to pay tax if that's his only purpose (seems that idea gave him some trouble wasn't it?)and you know behind the curtain, it is NOT as simple as that.
That's quite convincing to me.
The Bible is not about the creature (i.e., the nature) but about the relationship between the Creator and His creatures.
That's bs
and you know behind the curtain, it is NOT as simple as that.
Of course he wants more. He wants to help the public weed out false science and therefore prevent atheists from brainwashing our kids with their religion using public money.
I don't have a full understanding to his legal problems but that's irrelevant anyways.
