Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

davewhite04 said:
In your opinion how could the scientific method be used to verify this theory?
Click to expand...

Well that's a particularly tricky question. Verifying that organisms do evolve is fairly easy. Verifying the vague circumstances as to how they've evolved, is, again, somewhat obvious. Verifying the precise impetus behind the selection of particular genes is much more difficult.

There's one very good indicator for the theory, however. It predicted something which was found, which is, of course, the primary source of strength for a working theory.

The theory states that the unit of selection is the gene, rather than the individual, which explains why behaviors which contribute to the increase in replication of the gene, even at the expense of the individual (altruism), could easily evolve. Theorizing that genes are good at surviving predicts that genes which simply don't do anything would have an excellent retention rate: there isn't anything to select against. That means there's a good chance that a lot of our DNA is just junk.

Lo and behold, something between 80 and 90 percent of human DNA is exactly that. Junk.
 
davewhite04 said:
I was meaning how many after these 3.
Click to expand...
There were plenty during his lifetime. It's been 2,000 years. The human population has increased exponentially. If anything, I'd say there are far less, per capita. I'm unaware of any messiah claimants prowling Jerusalem at the moment, but there were at least 4 around Jesus's time. Most messiah claimants these days appear to be in it for the money.

I'm impressed by it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're easily impressed. ;)
 
redwards said:
Well that's a particularly tricky question. Verifying that organisms do evolve is fairly easy. Verifying the vague circumstances as to how they've evolved, is, again, somewhat obvious. Verifying the precise impetus behind the selection of particular genes is much more difficult.

There's one very good indicator for the theory, however. It predicted something which was found, which is, of course, the primary source of strength for a working theory.

The theory states that the unit of selection is the gene, rather than the individual, which explains why behaviors which contribute to the increase in replication of the gene, even at the expense of the individual (altruism), could easily evolve. Theorizing that genes are good at surviving predicts that genes which simply don't do anything would have an excellent retention rate: there isn't anything to select against. That means there's a good chance that a lot of our DNA is just junk.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that eloquent description.

Lo and behold, something between 80 and 90 percent of human DNA is exactly that. Junk.
Click to expand...

I thought it was over 97% which seriously interests me.
 
davewhite04 said:
Thanks for that eloquent description.
Click to expand...
Any time.

The book, by the way, is "The Selfish Gene." It's what put Richard Dawkins on the map.



I thought it was over 97% which seriously interests me.[/QUOTE]There are varying estimates. I was trying to be conservative :p
 
redwards said:
:shrug:

Faith doesn't qualify as evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidence to prove that Australia exists even requires an element of faith as I haven't been there.

I think there is probably a thread in the archives that discusses this subject in detail, feel free to bring it back to life.
 
davewhite04 said:
Evidence to prove that Australia exists even requires an element of faith as I haven't been there.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. There's overwhelming evidence that Australia does exist.

I think there is probably a thread in the archives that discusses this subject in detail, feel free to bring it back to life.
Click to expand...
The difference between belief with evidence and belief without evidence? I think I can grasp it.
 
redwards said:
No it doesn't. There's overwhelming evidence that Australia does exist.
Click to expand...

True.

But what to you changes your viewpoint from "don't believe" to "I know"?

The difference between belief with evidence and belief without evidence? I think I can grasp it.
Click to expand...

No. Was Jesus the messiah? thread, it's been a while since I've been on here but I think I remember that one.
 
davewhite04 said:
True.

But what to you changes your viewpoint from "don't believe" to "I know"?
Click to expand...
Nothing.

I don't see everything as black and white. I think there's a 99.99999999999999999999999999(ad infinitum)% chance that Australia exists.

but I think there's a 0.0...(ad infinitum)..01% chance that the core of the planet is a serpent.

Science works on probability, not absolutes.

No. Was Jesus the messiah? thread, it's been a while since I've been on here but I think I remember that one.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the subject will come up again ;)
 
davewhite04 said:
Considering Jesus stated what the two greatest commandments were to follow, and he followed them to a tee, then anyone who follows them will automatically become similar to him.
Click to expand...

That's like saying anyone that wears a leather jacket and a helmet is a motorcyclist.
 
redwards said:
Nothing.

I don't see everything as black and white. I think there's a 99.99999999999999999999999999(ad infinitum)% chance that Australia exists.

but I think there's a 0.0...(ad infinitum)..01% chance that the core of the planet is a serpent.
Click to expand...

Me too, but I acknowledge that either case requires an element of faith.

In your first example I would require very little faith to believe in your second example I would require a huge amount of faith to believe it, so much that I don't even entertain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top