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

You've not provided any evidence against abiogenesis yet ...
although I have to say that this thread was actually
about evolution (see other posters comments on that).You have said that the probability of spontaneous creation of
the first cell is 10^40,000. Without stating how that was
derived, nor why you feel that a probablistic approach is
applicable to this problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
I dont know how it was calculated. In my book is only a reference.

​

"Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, vol 294, 1981, sid 105

---

I think you'll find that Hoyle's view is that life could not
have originated by natural means on Earth, but that it
DID originate by natural means elsewhere in the universe and
come to earth from space.Do a web-search on Hoyle and you'll find more about his
opinions.This goes to show why you shouldn't take things out of context.What I was getting at by asking is that I've often seen arguments
from porbability against abiogenesis, but they all assume that
there has only been 3-4 billion years ON EARTH for this to
happen. This is not the case if organic material can (and it
can) be borne in from space.regardless ... abiogenesis is not required to support evolution.Evolution is about diversification of life once it came
into being (perhaps by the word of God, or Chronos or someone)This leaves us with mutations ... what about them do you believe
ways against evolution ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Are there "scientists" who will NOT change their minds even when they are presented with "sufficient evidence"?

​

Dyed-in-the-wool naturalists are incapable of changing their minds except in very rare instances. This is because people very rarely base their perspectives on primarily empirical data. 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.

---

I think you are missing the operative term in the question I
posed ... that is 'SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE'.No matter your biases (and as a scientist one should always be
aware (hard as that is) that everyone has biases), given
sufficient evidence a scientist WILL change their opinion.It's happened throughout the history of science, otherwise there
would have been no progress.It is more likely those that hold opinions because they have
been brought up to, without question, that find it hard
to accept new ideas no matter how much evidence is presented.

[b] [QUOTE] originally posted by MJKall available empirical data harmonizes so well with the portions of scripture that lend themselves to scientific and historical scrutiny.[/b][/QUOTE]I've asked in another thread for independent historical corroboration
of the Bible. There has been very little to date. Some suggestions
and time-frames, but overwhelmingly the historical content of
the bible appears to be contradicted by archeolofical evidence
rather than the other way around.Scientific correlation ? I'm not sure that I've seen that much
of a scientific nature in the Bible (although I don't read it
that often any more).And, if God were omnipotent, then anything is compatible with His
existence and creation of the universe ... including evolution.Getting hung up on the inerrency of the Bible (or ANY document) is
a dangerous, and short, slide into the sort of fanaticism shown
by certain Islamic groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

I think you may have a point there; some atheists do come by their atheistic faith by examining all the evidence . . . especially when such evidence is put forth in textbooks and documentaries (to name two vehicles of common naturalistic propaganda--hey, it is propaganda whether the people are unwitting victims of the sociological vortex that favors the cult of cosmic and biological evolutionism, or whether they are actually mere dogmatists with a corrupt agenda).

---

I am an athiest ... I came to my conclusions based upon a
christian upbringing, sunday school attendance, no television
(we didn't have one when I was a kid), reading the Bible for
myself, reading text-books and encyclopoedias.I feel that my resources and study had a fair amount of balance
of the two opposing views. I came down on the atheist side
after many years of consideration of data from both sides
of the debate, and of debating with different christians, muslims,
agnostics, athiests, and one hindu I even managed to
get a Mormon missionary to say 'Well, thanks, but I've got to
be going now.' which I thought was telling

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

I'm sure, then (insofar as I accurately promote what God promotes in his word, the Bible), that the claims of Jesus sounds hollow to all those who do not accept all Biblical doctrine. My a priori must be perceived as an a priori because there is no way to prove empirically, say, that Jesus really did rise from the dead (the linch pin responsible for a decision to take the rest of the Bible seriously). That is bad for me as a debater here and now, but good for my eternal destiny.

---

If you cannot proove the bible empirically, then why hold it up
against things that have a weight of empirical evidence in their
favour.Faith can be a wonderful thing ... when it causes one to be blind
to other ideas, no matter how well supported, it is
zealotry (is that a word?)

OK .... but is there any evidence you would consider
convincing in terms of evolution ?

I have very few problems with anything that you have put
forward, from a philosophical perspective.I disagree with the idea of interventions by God along
the way, and prefer to support the search for naturalistic
explanations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Would it have been consistent to add the following to your response above: "There is no positive evidence to discount the possibility of the supernatural, so it may be that our universe was created"?

---

No.If there is no positive evidence in favour the best we can
say is we don't know one way or the other.You can hold that opinion, but that wasn't the point being made
I feel.

I guess when it comes down to it, calling on the supernatural
as an explanation has traditionally been the last resort.If we have a phenomenon, and expend all of the naturalistic
explanations available to ur current level of thought and
technology we are likely to say 'Must be a supernatural
agency then.'Doesn't mean it is ... just that we've run out of ideas or
methods by which to test them.If God did create the universe, what evidence would he have left ?

Saying no positive evidence of supernatural, therefore
nature is all there isORNo evidence against, so earth could be createdAre different ... becuase of the conditional 'could'.I think the point being made was that science does not rule
out the supernatural, it simply makes no claims about it one
way or another, becuase it cannot find evidence to test.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If by that you mean I can hold the opinion that science doesn't know one way or another about ultimate origin, I do hold that opinion.
quote:

---

People don't know one way or another about the ultimate origin,
if they did this discussion board wouldn't exist.Some people hold deep seated beliefs about how it all began,
and others look at the evidence they can find and make
rational explanations of the evidence. If this leads to a
particular theory of origin becoming widely held as credible
then through science we have found a good indication of the
ultimate origins.I agree about tv documentaries though. In my experience of them
they are biased in the views that they protray. I have
constant arguments with my older brother, who has no research
training, because he will take a documentary as fact without
questioning research methods, data interpretations, or the
possibility of bias.I don't think the scientific community places much emphasis on
tv documentaries though, and while that may influence the
layman the theories are formulated and progressed by professionals.

I didn't actually say that creationists were one,
and evolutionists were the other.If you enquire objectively (as possible) then that's
OK.If you start with an assumption about the answer and then
seek out evidences after the fact I would question the
validity of the approach.ToE stems from Darwin's observations, and we have increasingly
found evidences that match the basic concepts.YEC stems from the Bible ... and to make the evidence fit seems
on the whole to require casting doubt on scientific methods
which have been tested and verified considerably.