Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Dyed-in-the-wool naturalists are incapable of changing their minds except in very rare instances.

---

Pretty sweeping generalization. The history of science is riddled with ideas which, at first, no one wanted to take seriously. Eventually, the evidence catches up though, and the ideas get accepted. Hardly the behavior you'd expect from people incapableof changing thier minds.

quote:

---

This is because people very rarely base their perspectives on primarily empirical data.

---

Granted, which is why so many people believe in God.

quote:

---

The net result of an incorporation of actual empiricism upon the thinking of a population (of philosophically naturalistic individuals, for example), would be that they would regard such naturalistic philosophy and its inevitable implications, with at least the same dubiety as that group (of naturalists) has historically displayed toward creationism.

---

You are forgetting one thing--- evidence. Evidence is critically important in empiricism. Are you sure that you are using this term properly?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Finally some sense! Also an excellent example on your part, much better than anything that I can think up, especially the part where Zhauruz doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

hmmm..... the Greeks, the Sumerians, the Babylonians all had possible options. There are multitudes of tribal religions all over the world which don't fit neatly into your one-or-the-other scheme.Or, as per the Hitchhiker's Guide, the universe is a figment of its own imagination.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:

​

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?

​

Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

---

"You totally misunderstood me. The evidence I mentioned is that abiogenesis is impossible."Well, the topic is about what evidence would convince you that Evolution has occurred, not Abiogenesis.

​

My apologies if I musunderstood. Now, what evidence in favor of Evolution would you accept, if it existed?

quote:

---

quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:
Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.

​

To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.

---

"Im the one whos willing to change my view."You just said, in your opening post, that you weren't willing to change your view! I congradulate you if you have suddenly had a change of heart, but surely you must understand my confusion at this complete turnaround."Creationists see the facts as they are."Don't you mean, "Creationists see the facts as filtered through your particular interpretation of a particular religious book?" I mean, if you didn't have the religious training first, would you be a Creationist?"We dont dogmatically think every organism descend from the same ancestor."Neither do scientists. Common descent is heavily supported by abundant evidence found in nature, with converging lines of evidence from many different sources."We do research about it."Great. Let's see this research, preferably that which is published in peer-reviewed professional journals."You just assume all organisms have a common descent."No, the evidence in nature overwhelmingly suggests common descent. I don't assume anything. See:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs5.html "You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible."This is quite a claim. You seem to be saying that there are huge flaws, or even outright fraud involved in the various aging methods. This a very serious charge and I do hope you are prepared to back it up with specific evidence. Please, show us exactly how all of the various dating methods are unreliable, and also show us evidence of widespread fraud among Geologists and Physicists."I and many creationists adapt the age of the earth by researches."Great. Show us this research."And about scientifically thinking. I youre gonna get to the truth you must rely on both scientifically and supernaturally thinking."Are you suggesting that science should allow the supernatural as an explanation for phenomena? How would this be a benefit to inquiry?

​

Remember, science is about finding naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena. It is not meant to provide any kind of "ultimate truth", morality codes, rules for aesthetics, or other such philosophies.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Techincally you're right, according to the original calculation. Reason being that the probabilty of granite and "life" by their definition probably differs at the millionth decimal place.However, this greatly depends on what you consider to be life. The problem is that the definition of life doesn't come from a microscopic perspective. Thus, the calculation of probability of life is wrong from the beginning.Next, this calculation must not have been done recently or the person who did it has never heard of physics. From other discussions on this thread, it has become apparent that this calculation is based on a finite number of chemical reactions. This simply isn't true!
The idea behind the calc. as stated by Zauruz(most directly stated in post 136) is in the number of electrons. Another thing that cannot possibly ever be calculated. Why?
1)Because there is a distinct possibility that the universe is endless.
2)Because there is the fact that matter can be cnverted to energy and vice versa.Overall, that has got to be the worst calculation I have ever seen. It manages to be completely wrong in the eyes of math, science, and just plain old logic.

Before the cell was formed there was no natural selection at all.

I dont know how it was calculated. In my book is only a reference."Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, vol 294, 1981, sid 105

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
Did you even read my post or the webpage linked to it? You are using a 'law' to discredit evolution (a science) when the author of that law himself stated that his 'law' is not applicable when you move into the realm of science.

​

Probabilities have no meaning when you are working with science.

---

Yes probabilities have with science to do. Ofcurse he was sceptic about an EXACT border for impossibilities. Then he meant that the border MIGHT be little smaller than he thought (one of 10^60 or one of 10^70). 1 of 10^40.000 is not "a little smaller".

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Correct, Octopice.
If an average man produces 3,650,000,000 sperm in one lifetime, and an average woman produces 360 ova in her lifeftime, the probability of any one of us being conceived is 1:1,314,000,000,000. And that does not count the improbability of our parents being paired. That alone could be as improbable as one in three billion. But then we have to factor in the improbability of BOTH of our parents being conceived, and our grandparents, etc., the probability of THEM being pared up, and suddenly even the most extreme abiogenesis probability calculations become moot. These insanely large numbers would have to go back generation upon generation for us to find out just how improbable our birth was, even given the existance of our species.
Thus by Zauruz's logic, he does not exist.

---

You did the same mistake as Octopic!
My parents "got together". The chance that A CHILD IS BORNE is quite large, unless there is some problem with infertility. But if youre gonna point out any mature ova and a particular sperm and decide yourself that they are going to be a zygote, then you would probably not guess right. You guessed wrong because Im here and "ZAURINA" is not.
NOW Im here. And the chance that I exist is 1 of 1.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:
Considering that you entered the discussionb saying "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!", engaging in trying to convince you seems rather futile. If you want to engage in debate, it's senseless to enter it in this manner.

---

No its not senseless to enter like that. If someone think true scientists should be convinced by evolution, then I WILL BE there immediately to show that theyre wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:
The actual probability arguments should go elsewhere - this discussion is supposed to be what evidence creationists would accept. You've already answered this with "none". End of discussion. If you want to discuss the probability arguments, look in another thread.

---

The sentence "What would convince you that evolution has happened?" has to do with probability arguments.However. I sometimes come across angry comments like - "Get away from here." - when my arguments are strong.

See the reference about 10^40.000Peter: "nor why you feel that a probablistic approach is
applicable to this problem."Me: Oh, I would LISTEN to what you would say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by octipice:

Overall, that has got to be the worst calculation I have ever seen. It manages to be completely wrong in the eyes of math, science, and just plain old logic.

---

Hehe. No I dont think its so bad. I trust Hoyle and Wickramshire with their 10^40.000. About 10^80 electrons and their reactionspeed Ive see reference in this book. But these measurements ought to be found somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now, what evidence in favor of Evolution would you accept, if it existed?

---

Yes. If it existed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

You just said, in your opening post, that you weren't willing to change your view! I congradulate you if you have suddenly had a change of heart, but surely you must understand my confusion at this complete turnaround.

---

As soon as I say that Im open to facts I mean realistic ones. And since facts points against evolution, they DO, I see evolution as being wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Neither do scientists. Common descent is heavily supported by abundant evidence found in nature, with converging lines of evidence from many different sources.

---

See some of my arguments in the topic "Definition of created kind"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Great. Let's see this research, preferably that which is published in peer-reviewed professional journals.

---

A good book with references is "Typen des Lebens" by Sigfied Scherer

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

No, the evidence in nature overwhelmingly suggests common descent. I don't assume anything. See:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs5.html

---

Ill take a look at all those links. Probably the same stuff as usual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

This is quite a claim. You seem to be saying that there are huge flaws, or even outright fraud involved in the various aging methods. This a very serious charge and I do hope you are prepared to back it up with specific evidence. Please, show us exactly how all of the various dating methods are unreliable, and also show us evidence of widespread fraud among Geologists and Physicists.

---

In my swedish creation book Ive many references. Ill take a speciall time to wright them to you soon.I really trust these ages of an earth younger than 4,6 milliard years. The continents are decomposed. Delta is built up outside rivers. Gases leak to the atmosphere. Salts are gathered in the oceans. Oil leak out from sedimentary rocks.
All these processes have likely speed. They have a reasonable speed. And the earth could not so so old.

The only necessity for selection to act is the existence of a self-replicant.
Surely there were replicons many many years before the cell appeared, subjects to improvement in its capacity of doing a exact copy of themselves, by NS.Probably, even before, it existed chemical evolution, also mediated by selection.

Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that Borel specifically excluded the origin of life from his line of reasoning. I think BOrel might understand his own work better than you.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky