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

Just a twist on the same question that runs through the
whole forum.What would it take to convince you as a creationist, that evolution
has occurred ?If your answer is nothing ... leave the debate, your not interested
in finding the truth only preaching your belief.Any other input would be read with interest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
To be fair Peter the question should also be turned on its head....

​

What evidence would convince us non-creationists that TC,JP,KP et al have it right......

​

A fossil of an allosaur eating a homo sapien a` la Onyate man?

​

The discovery of the remains of a massive 4,000 year old boat bigger than modern cruise liners?

​

All extant copies of Origin of the species spontaneously combusting and a loud voice proclaiming from the heavens "I MADE IT ALL!!!"?

​

Seems to me the criticism coming here to preach instead of debate is a double edged sword unless we define evidence that would convince us that their arguments are correct.....

---

I agree (re: preaching), but there are several threads where
one or more of the evolutionists have put forward groups of
evidences that WOULD convince us that evolution was wrong.Proving that creation is correct would (for me) have to include::For YEC::Evidence of a 6000 year old earth.
'Out of place' remains in the fossil record.
Species thought to be part of an evolutionary hierarchy found to be
the same age.Scientific explanation of how a flood could 'sort' remains.In general::Objective criteria for ID & match to living things.
Historical corroboration for the patriarchs of the old testament
(to serve as an indicator of Biblical accuracy).My intent in starting this thread (as with the other threads
I have started) is to attempt to re-focus a meandering discussion
and to place the Creationist debaters in a position of defending
their claims, rather than attacking evolution.I know that they DO have to defend their positions once some debate
is entered, but that starts to become a dance ... largely because
us sciencey types are really easy to divert with interesting and
controversial opinions.I think that the question here IS a fair one.Do you know any scientist who, when faced with sufficiently
credible evidence, will NOT change their mind ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Nope....

​

In post 2 I was just pre-empting the expected creationist response of *well your argument applies to you as well*. Since the point has now been raised and answered anyone of the creationist persuasion who posts here need not mention it again......

---

Fair enough. I notice no creationist responses yet.I seem to be having that effect on this forum ... dunno why!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

Oh BTW are you familiar with Onyate man?

---

[/B][/QUOTE]Yes

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godismyfather:
Nothing could convince me that evoulution happened. I'm just trying to save some people from suffering ETERNALLY with the most UNIMAGINABLE pain times 1 million in Hell.

---

In that case please read post one in this thread, and leave the
debate.It would be a pretty petty God that would send someone to hell
for beleiving the evidence that He himself placed for us to find.Speaking of hell ... I never did understand why the Devil punishes
sinners in hell ... I thought he was the enemy of God. Wouldn't
that make him pretty nice to sinners ? ... kindred spirits and all
that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
This is an interesting question, posed from either the evolutionists or creationists point of view. For myself, and assuming you are referring to macro-evolution, there would have to be a tremendous amount of undeniable proof. Not just evidence that could be used as a support for the ToE, but real, undeniable proof. This would not necessarily negate my belief in creation although it would require me to change my understanding of creation. I was surprised to find this thread because just today I was thinking to myself what it would take to convince some evolutionists that creation was correct and evolution was incorrect.

---

Thankyou, but this is evasive. What would this 'undeniable proof'
(lay usage of proof) be? That is the question I have posed.Why would acceptance of evolution deny the creation, anyhow ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

For many, I suppose nothing short of their death, with them finding themselves standing before the God they have rejected, with God proclaiming to them that He and He alone created all things and did so by His Word, by His speaking all things into existance, nothing short of that may be required to convince many evolutionists. Now, what would it take for most creationists to accept evolution? Well, no doubt there are some that would not accept it regardless of the amount of evidence or even the presentation of solid and undeniable proof. Most, however, would be able to rationalize it and still allow it to fit within the concept of creation.

---

For many perhaps. Equally, though, you could say that many creationists will believe that evolution didn't happen until
they die and God says 'What, you missed all that evidence
I left lying around?'Include it into their concept or creation .. yes, many already do.
(Oh, I see you said that in the next paragraph )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Already today there are those who accept that God did indeed create through the process of evolution. But for myself, it would have to be proof and not merely evidence. Evidence is a great tool but it has been known to lead educated men and women down a path of error and misunderstanding. Religious beliefs have also been known to lead educated men and women down a path of error and misunderstanding. When science and religion, and those who promote them, realize that they are not such strange bedfellows after all, the journey to real knowledge and ultimate truth will have taken a great leap forward. Truth is Undeniable, Unchangeable, and Immoveable. Knowledge must always take second place to truth. Even when it seems as though it must be right. Only then will real knowledge lead to the ultimate truth. And truth, once found, can never be denied.......it can only be rejected!

---

This sounds good. Sounds like you are someone who is willing
to consider the evidences and should any satisfy you modify
your way of thinking. I like that ... it's always been my position
too.BUT you are still evading the question.WHAT WOULD BE UNDENIABLE PROOF ?How does that differ from a mountain of evidence that consistently
favours evolutionary process ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Some of the things I noticed in this post is the obvious ignorance of God, Hell, and Satan. Now before you think I insult you with my use of the word "ignorance", understand that we are all ignorant of certain things. Ignorance should not be equated with stupidity. A stupid person is someone who is unable to learn certain things. An ignorant person is someone who is not properly educated in certain things. Example: I myself am ignorant of the concepts involved within the study of Quantum Physics, but only because I have not been properly educated in that field of study and not because I do not have the ability to learn about it. So please take no offense with my use of the term "ignorance".

---

Thankyou for the definition of 'ignorance'.Perhaps you were ignorant of my ability to understand common
english ?Sorry about the tone of the above, but I WAS offended by the
condescending tone of the response. I've noticed similar
tactics in TC's posts. The aim is to attempt to undermine the
originator and to deflect from the actual question.If someone asked a question (and you can tell these by the
little wiggly bit with a dot underneath), then it goes without
saying that they are ignorant of that subject matter. If they
weren't, why would they ask ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Once one accepts the concept of an All-Knowing, All-Powerful Entity that is behind the creation of the universe, and accepting the truth that this entity has a much greater understanding of exactly what is occurring around us, and why, and that this entity is fully equipped to deal with all things pertaining to the universe, man is better equipped to understand the limits of his own understanding. I accept that God is in full control, His plan of redeeming mankind is right on schedule, and even when things make little sense to me, He stills knows better than I and has all things well within His control. That is a matter of faith and not sight.

---

I am not concerned with your faith, so long as you do not use it
without evidence in the current debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

It is also easier to recognize that it is Satan that seeks to deceive us, and not God. Why God does things the way He does is not for man to question. What lump of clay makes demands on the potter? Is not the potter greater than the clay? We are inquisitive creatures, full of questions. Sometimes, in our search for the answers, we arrive at the wrong answers.

---

In what sense is the potter greater than the pot ?What are the criteria for comparison ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

As far as Satan punishing people in Hell, I am not sure where you got this idea but it did not come from the Bible. Satan will be the one who receives the greatest condemnation for his willing rebellion against his Creator. He has no power in Hell.

---

Thankyou for finally answering my question!!!Re: Satan and power in hell ... sorry popular mythology where I
come from ... should know better really. I blame the Catholics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Now without getting into a philosophical discussion on the numerous concepts of Hell that exist today, most of which concern the wrong answers we often arrive at that I briefly mentioned earlier, the Bible speaks of Hell and uses three distinct references about Hell. It is a most unfortunate side-effect of "The Divine Comedy", sometimes simply referred to as "Dantes' Inferno" that has given much of the misconceptions of Hell today. If you have not read "The Divine Comedy" I suggest that you do. You will see within its' pages much of the understanding people have developed about Hell. This place called Hell is not what most people think it is. Hades, Gehenna, Tartaroos. All three are mentioned in the Bible. All three are referred to as Hell. That is unfortunate. They are not the same.

​

---

I blame John Milton myself .. ever read 'Paradise Lost' ?PS: Hades and Tartarus are ancient Greek mythology.Hades was the God who reigned over Tartarus. Why are they mentioned
in the bible ? Doesn't the bible pre-date ancient greek culture ?
Maybe it's just a translation thing, in which case an all encompasing
'hell' doesn't seem so bad.NOW, perhaps you would answer the actual ISSUES raised by the post
rather than deflecting into condescending oratory!!1) If anyone here (Eist or Cist) would NOT accept any evidence
that satisfies them that C or E is more feasible than whichever
they currently accept they should leave the forum.2) If God punishes people JUST for excersising their free-will and
ability to think, doesn't that make him pretty petty ?I was about to head off at a tangent, but I'll resist.I couldn't resist this response though. I DID try to, but ...
well ... I just couldn't I'm afraid

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
In response to your question, "what is undeniable proof", I would say that it is anything that leaves absolutely no question in the mind.

---

So my question to you is WHAT FACTS OR OBSERVATIONS would leave
no question in your mind that evolution has occurred ?If the answer is still 'Nothing', then you are preaching and not
debating, and should withdraw from the forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I feel no need to preach to those who have heard the Word already and have chosen to reject it. I would say, however, that the most vehement proselytizers today are the fringe evolutionists. Their desire to propagandize the world with their doctrine while, under the guise of science, exclude all other positional beliefs that are in opposition to the ToE, is second to none. The study of the ToE must always be approached from a position of acceptance in order for the study to be considered valid. Any approach that questions the validity of the ToE as being truly scientific is met with a blitzkrieg of aspersion, defamation, and calumny that would make Hitler jealous. Using tactics that tarnish the hard work of the honest and sincere proponents of the ToE, Nazi-like behaviours are used by a few of the fringe neo-evolutionists. For them, the words of Hitler, "Tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, and people will start to believe you", is their Motis Operandi. These few irrational evolutionists make the rest of their group look like they all are incapable of independant thought. That is most unfortunate. I have several friends who are evolutionists that I work with on a daily basis. Never has even one of them ever attempted to use the deplorable tactics that I have seen some of these neo-nazi-evolutionists employ. They would be ashamed to count them amoung their ranks. The exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of continuing knowledge. Diversity of thought is paramount to new and wonderful discovery. Fascism may not be totally dead, but it sure smells like a rotting corpse.

---

And yet you DO NOT answer the question directed at you, you
simply tirade against an illusive band of neo-nazi-evolutionists!!Show me some evidence of this propaganda. If it exists there MUST
be evidence of it ... propaganda is not much use if it is
unseen/unheard or whatever.No legitimate scientist would reject a theory (even contrary to
conventional scientific understanding) provided that it is
backed up with sufficient evidence with credible interpretation
of that evidence.They may argue about it for a while, but eventually with sufficient
support for the new theory, they will accept it and reject
old theory. If that were NOT the case we would still be clinging
to the dark age concepts of a flat-earth at the centre of
the solar system.Oh by the way, when Gallileo started trying to tell people that
the earth was round and orbitted the sun, the POPE had him
thrown in prison!! How's that for a precedent for religous
conspiracy to suppress any truth that makes a religous
order look bad/less credible!!

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

​

No, I would not make this claim, although it does occur in many debates. Remaining within the context of my entire post, it addresses how the proponents of the ToE who are on the fringe, (and not the mainstream proponents), are never willing to discuss the ToE honestly with anyone who approaches the ToE as a skeptic. These fringe evo's are easily recognized by their tactics of attacking the person rather than addressing the position through the refutation of evidences presented. The ToE is never so cut-n-dried as some continually insist that it is. As I stated earlier, I have several friends who are evolutionists who I work with on a daily basis. They fully know my position as I do theirs. They have never used my opposition to the ToE as an excuse to simply dismiss any opposing view on any particular subject of discussion that we may have. If I ask a question and they know that nothing within the ToE can properly explain away my position, they readily admit it. They do not abandon their position, but neither do they disregard my position as invalid simply because it challenges the ToE. Perhaps that is why we always look forward to new and rewarding discussions. We make every attempt to show each other mutual respect.

---

Nor am I disregarding your point of view, otherwise I would not
be involved in the discussions within this forum.The only question I have asked in this thread is (to re-phrase):Is there any single piece (or set) of evidence that would make
a creationist consider the ToE to be a real possibility ?If there is, I would like to know what that is.My reason for asking this is, basically, that have studied
in various scientific fields (both academically, privately,
and for work related issues) I find the evidence I have seen in
favour of ToE to be strongly compelling.When much of this evidence is presented to YEC's it is rebutted
on some ground or another (usually something in the fine detail,
and often things which conventional science accept after years
of reliable use e.g. radiometric dating).SO the question is ... what evidence would convince you that ToE
had happened ?Hypothetically!!!If someone asks me what would convince me that ToE is wrong, I
can think of a few evidences, which if found would make me re-think.That's all I'm asking ... trying to find some focus for debate
really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I have pondered this question more than I care to admit. In all actuality, I would hope that nothing could ever convince me that the ToE was correct and that the God of the Bible was just another fairy tale from the mind of demented men and women. I would find it difficult to conceptualize that this existance is all that there is and that there is no afterlife. I do not find this difficult to accept because it means no eternal reward but rather I find it difficult to accept because it would mean no eternal judgement. I find it nearly impossible to fathom that some of the most heinous crimes ever conceived and then callously committed would go eternally unpunished. I do not speak of the most obvious crimes or the criminals, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

​

I refer to the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash. If that is the kind of world that you, or anyone else, truly desires to put your faith in then I pity your kind most above all creatures. I would not care to believe in such a world of lawlessness where there is no true consequence of action. That is why I must ultimately reject and totally deny any acceptance of such an inhumane concept as the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is the way I was raised, though I seriously doubt that is the reason I feel this way. In fact, despite my upbringing, I have far too much empathy in my being to ever pay homage to such a barbaric concept as the Godless theory of evolution. There is a reason some people refer to this concept as "EVILUTION"! No thanks, I hold to a belief that offers Hope! I'll Stick To The Word! I fully expect, and rightfully demand, judgement for the wicked! Enough Said!!!

---

What has judgement for the wicked and law got to do with
the christian God ?Plenty of cultures which did not worship your God were well
ordered, well policed, etc.He doesn't judge them on earth, so he has no real interest
in what goes on down here.With or without God ALL actions have consequence.You seem to be under the impression that fear of God is
the only reason for doing what is societally accepted as
right. If that's true of you, please keep believing and I
will sleep happier in my bed.Perhaps you should read 'Gulliver's Travels', I'm particularly
thinking of the parts concerning Yahoo's and Winnen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Of course if they do commit any of those awfull crimes and then accept Jesus etc they get to go to heaven, meanwhile any hypothetical sinless atheist has to kick his heels in hell for eternity.....

​

Now thats what I call the sort of divine judgement that can only come from perfect wisdom.....

---

That's OK, we can recant on our deathbeds, just to be on the safe
side

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Just a twist on the same question that runs through the
whole forum.

​

What would it take to convince you as a creationist, that evolution
has occurred ?

​

If your answer is nothing ... leave the debate, your not interested
in finding the truth only preaching your belief.

​

Any other input would be read with interest.

---

Just had a quick run through this thread, and
still feel it's an important question.The creationist responses (apart from 'Burn in Hell Heathen
Scum!!! ) are basically::'I would need undeniable proof.'... not very helpful.Is there a SINGLE piece of supporting evidence that would
make a creationist think 'Well, that could happen.'My gut feeling about why there has not been a single point(or
even list of points) is that it's a bit scary in case someone
points to evidence for that very thing.In the sister thread (and earlier in this thread) I've pointed
to some things that would make me doubt evolutionary theory ...
and I haven't seen any pointers to evidence that they have
ocurred.

he question I originally asked was what, if any,
evidencde would make a creationist say
'Well, maybe evolution could happen.'The thread seems to have divolved into a discussion on
morality ... wirthy in its own right, but evading the
original question I think.

I think the point being made about probabilities is that
you cannot apply a probablity to something that has
already happened.Before I roll the die, there is a 1:6 chance of getting
a 5.After I roll a 5, probabilities are meaningless.Not sure where you got your 10^80,000 from either, perhaps
you could elaborate that since it seems to be the crux of
your problem in accepting evolution.The answer to my original post I think, for you, is
'convince me of abiogenesis and evolution becomes more
credible.'Would that sum up your position better than 'Nothing will
convince me?'Personally I'm not sure how abiogenesis supports evolution,
but many of the anti-evo arguments rely on that, so it's
worth discussing (there is a separate thread for that), but
this particular discussion could continue here for now.

You have an interesting concept of probabilities,
but what I was mainly asking is how was the 10^40,000
derived.I'll point out now that there is no such thing as
an impossibility. If the probability can be calculated
that means it CAn happen, but is extremely unlikely.