What would be enough proof for a creationist?

There was at one time a thread that dealt with the subject of what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist. I was going to post there but I couldn't find the thread.It seems that from the creationist point of view there aren't enough transitional fossils. I think that this one fact is the biggest stumbling block to getting bible literalists to believe in evolution. No matter how many fossils you might find someone who wanted to continue believing in "kinds" and that God created everything at once would simply say that each of these fossils that you found was simply a "kind" which has gone extinct. With such a narrow view of the world around us I think that the only type of definitive proof would be to find a complete uninterrupted lineage all the way back to a previous sufficiently different species. By uninterrupted I mean that if you had my bones and my grandfather's bones but not my dad's that would be an interrupted lineage. Clearly this type of evidence is impossible to produce so the fundamentalist will always say "but you are still missing pieces".I would be curious if this is an accurate description of what the creationist members of the board are looking for. If it is not could you explain what you would consider to be sufficient proof that God created life through evolution and not by producing animals prefab?Also, if anyone knows where that thread went I would be more than happy to revive it rather than start a new one.

Thanks for all the replies.

quote:

---

above is my initial question. It sprang from the initial poster's bafflement that creationists seem to never get enough information to get off that 'God thing'.

---

Actually what I said was: I never once suggested that your God didn’t create life, the universe and everything. I was just asking what it would require for you to believe that your God created the life we see today via evolution. I’m not sure that any of your responses really addressed that issue. Perhaps if I answer your question first you will then answer mine? I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?

TC,I'm not sure that I have enough understanding of geology to make complete sense of your post.

quote:

---

If uniformitarian geology is correct, these fossil forests should represent an amount of time closer to the 50 ky value. If catastrophic geology has a chance, these fossil forests should represent a much larger amount of time (~25+ my).

---

Are you basing this number on your accelerated decay rate?Also, I’m not sure how this is related to transitional fossils.

quote:

---

yet showing them a thousand doesn't seem to sufficient, because they just block it in as one animal or another so it's not really transitional.

---

That is exactly right. That is why I don't think that there can be any resolution here. It seems that they want to believe what they want and they don't care what the evidence says. All they have to do is say, "No, not convinced yet. I need more." Since there can never be enough you can keep going like this forever. It seems like quite a myopic view to me.

I like green better than your other colors so I will respond to this message. I think this also addresses AM's message as well.The reason I said that we can suppose that God created the first piece is because I wanted to get away from the "where did the first life come from?" question. I am happy to grant you that the God of your choice created the first life for the purposes of this question because I wasn't really interested in that. I was more concerned with what happened after that first life showed up. YECs say that God created everything fully "evolved", science says that life evolved over successive generations. I was just trying to figure out if an uninterrupted string of parents and offspring is what you would require to say, "OK, now I see the evidence for evolution."As a side note: I also didn't see how post #20 answered Ned's question.

quote:

---

The treads subject was not necessarily intended to be transitional fossils, but it is to discuss "what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist". The transitional fossils bit appears to be a mere example given by bob gray. So I posted a brief description of what I would consider sufficient, relatively conclusive, evidence of an old earth.

---

You are quite correct; the subject was not necessarily intended to be transitional fossils. However I don't think that an old earth is proof of evolution, it just means the planet has been around a while. It certainly helps with the time frame but why couldn't God have let the earth sit around for 4 billion years and then do his creation thing?

Excellent point. Thanks.

quote:

---

Sorry, but it's not about proving evolution that would make a creationist believe, it's about disproving God. You "KNOW" that there is no God (correct me if I'm mistaken in saying that), I "KNOW" that there is indeed a God. Even if you ever do find absolute indisputable proof, not evidence, proof of evolution, most Creationists(including myself) would have to have their God proven false before they believe you.

---

My particular belief in God is not really at issue here. Clearly it is possible to be both a Christian and believe in evolution, the list is long and distinguished and has been provided by Jar several times.This having been said, I’m not sure that you understand the question. The question was not, does God exist? but rather, By what mechanism did God put diversity of life on this planet? Science would answer that the evidence we have points to evolution and creationists would argue that he created everything fully formed. I was trying to ascertain what type of evidence would be required of you to believe that your God might have started everything and then let it go via evolution.

quote:

---

So you never will be able to absolutely prove evolution anyway.

---

I would agree with this statement. It is not so much a question of proof but more a question of how much evidence would be required to say, Yes, that seems like it is the most likely scenario.

quote:

---

Also, since I feel like debating, I'll just say that the biggest reason I know of that we creationists well not accept evolution as God's medium of creation is because evolution takes much of the control out of God's hands.

---

I guess I just don’t understand this line of reasoning. Does mean that you believe God is involved in personally forming every single cell? Every time a bacteria divides God is there to do the dividing? Are you suggesting that your God is not powerful enough to create an evolving system?

quote:

---

Don't misquote me on this; God could manipulate DNA or whatever to get the right animal, but it would mean he would have to guide the animal all the way to conquering it's parents.

---

Conquering it’s parents doesn’t seem to belong at the end of this sentence. Can you clarify?

I was thinking about this last night and I think you are correct. The answer is that no amount of evidence would be sufficient. Since it is ideological that they believe what they believe, to actually see evidence of evolution would destroy their faith.I guess changing minds is out of the question but I think that keeping it out of schools in all its disguises is certainly possible.