What evidence is needed to change a creationist

Did you possibly place markers for links in your post which you intended to fill in later and then forgot?--Percy

Lithodid-Man has requested that comments on creationist feedback be withheld, so I've started up a companion thread over at What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions.--Percy

When typing your reply into the message box, if you look to the immediate left you'll see a help link for dBCodes. Click on the link and a page will come up describing, among other things, how to use dBCodes to produce quotes like this: Lithodid-Man has requested that this thread not be used for rebuttals (and I assume rebuttals of rebuttals) of descriptions of evidence creationists think is necessary to change their minds about evolution, so I have started a companion thread: What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions--Percy

This appeared in my inbox recently: --Percy

Theories are never proven. The best they can achieve is to become accepted after an intense period of review, vefication, replication and successful predictions. Discovery Institute's list of Scientists who Dissent from Darwinism contains only about 750 names.On the other hand, the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve currently has around 800 names supporting evolution. The catch is only scientists name Steve are allowed to sign, so since Steve's are about 1% of scientists, that means that around 80,000 scientists accept evolution.80,000 supporters versus 750 dissenters. That's less than 1% dissenting. Can you name any successful theory supported by less than 1% of scientists?--Percy

Hi Three Dogs,You initiated participation in this thread saying: Let's assume that when you say "prove" you mean "support with evidence". If the scientific view is supported by sufficient evidence, what more could you want?There are several misconceptions in your Message 69: While one of the possibilities is that the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch where everything coalesced together, it is just a possibility, and not a widely accepted one at this time. There is much evidence that tells us that all the matter in the universe once existed in a very tiny space often referred to as a singularity. The most obvious evidence was originally discovered by Edwin Hubble when he found that for the most part galaxies are all receding from one another, with recession speed proportional to distance. If you project the velocities of all the galaxies backward in time, they were once all in the same place about 13.7 billion years ago. While we have some plausible possibilities, we do not know at this time what initiated the Big Bang. That it happened is supported by much evidence. What caused it to happen isn't something that is well understood at this time. There was no "spontaneous combustion" as we commonly use the term. The very early universe was a very rapidly expanding plasma of quarks, other fundamental particles, and photons. Permanent atoms, mostly hydrogen and helium, are thought to have condensed out of the plasma after about two or three hundred thousand years. Again, if by proof you mean "supported by evidence", then since you say "without proof" that would leave only faith. I don't think anyone here objects to beliefs based upon faith. Disagreements usually arise only when it is claimed that faith-based beliefs also have scientific validity, which can't be true when no evidence is involved.--Percy

If disagreement in the creation/evolution controversy only concerned whether God caused the Big Bang, it would be cause for much rejoicing.--Percy