But why, Goatboy? What does your faith in that small amount of evidence have to offer you? Even if evolution and the big bang had all the evidence in the world, what would be gained by believing it?
If you have to gain something for it to be true, you're a moron.http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
There's some evidence. If you want more, google for it - or better yet, read a science textbook.
Anyways, regarding testing evolution itself - one idea is to design an evolution simulator. It doesn't have to get every scientific detail right, but it should be a fairly accurate model. This is optimal since this IS a site about computers, so i'm assuming you know how to program.
If you're a scientist and have access to a microscope and some bacteria (and a way to look at their DNA), bacteria are a much easier way to study evolution because of how quickly they reproduce.
I wasn't saying that I have to gain something to believe something is true. I was just asking what was gained from believing in evolution, regardless of the evidence for or against it.
Thanks for the link. I read the page and I see a lot of good ideas and logic. Here is a quote from the page:
"Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species."
I'm sorry if I ever came across as saying that genetic changes/mutations never occur and we haven't observed them in the laboratory. I know we have. I just think that we are observing adaptations within species
to changing environments. The bacteria are still bacteria even after their genetics change. If evolution is just defined as above: "genetic change in a population from one generation to another," then sure, I believe in evolution. But I don't think any species has ever changed into another species. Just small adaptations.
-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:12 pm --
That sums it up right there. Clrkbar, you claim not to be religious then you give Pascal's wager on the Jesus lotto.
It's obvious that you have no compunctions about lying, which, were you to have read your precious Bible, you'd know to be an abomination to God, as is homosexuality, per Proverbs 6. This false flag apologetics tactic you have going where you claim to be an honest skeptic only works on people with an IQ <70, e.g. a church-goers.
You misinterpret me. I view religious people as those who are ritualistic and simply follow a bunch of rules because they are told to. When I say I am not religious, I mean I actually seek out the truth. I weigh all the options and take in all the opinions. I don't just disregard an idea because it contradicts what I have been told in church.
Pascal's wager is good logic. Why is that religious to you?
-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:21 pm --
Goatboy wrote:What do you gain by knowing that 2 + 2 = 4? What do you gain by knowing how gravity works, or how cells divide? I should not have even used the word "believe" when talking about science. People "believe" in God, but I "know" facts. So let's settle on this: I won't say I believe in science if you won't say you know God exists.
Some things we can know, such as 2 + 2 = 4... I don't really know what I gain from knowing that. Personally, I love math, and it's good to know that this world makes sense and has some structure to it.
Then there are things that could be true but we can't really "know" in the same way that we know 2 + 2 = 4. Like God or evolution. Both take faith to believe in. Not exactly the same as Pascal's Wager, but close. I just think of it this way: if both beliefs take faith, which belief makes more sense to have faith in?