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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
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.

---

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".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.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. 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.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.

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.

---

First, congratulations on an excellent initial post. Welcome to the forum.Moose, I think, has mentioned that "proof" is not the realm of science. Science observes facts or phenomena, then develops theories to explain the observations. A scientific theory cannot, unfortunately, be "proven". Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc, are not "proven". However, scientific theories spawn numerous hypotheses - statements or predictions based on some part of a theory - which CAN be tested. If the test, which must be replicatable by other scientists, shows the hypothesis to be invalid, then either the specific prediction was incorrect, or something is wrong with the theory. If the hypothesis is valid, otoh, it doesn't "prove" the theory is correct - merely that one particular aspect of the theory (the testable hypothesis it spawned) has been validated. Science tends to be very parsimonious with the label "theory" - to be acceptable, a theory must undergo numerous tests. If it fails consistently, it gets scrapped. If it passes consistently, then it can be said we are asymptotically approaching truth (not that the theory is true). In science, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the criteria. If it fails part of the time but passes some tests, then it generally is revised. Even once an idea is graced with the term "theory" by the concensus of those scientists who study the phenomena, it doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. (Newton's theory was ultimately subsumed in Einstein's relativity, which was in turn subsumed in Schrodinger et al quantum mechanics - I can't wait to see what happens next...).If you are so convinced that so-called "macroevolution" is impossible, perhaps you'd care to explain why? What and where is the barrier that prevents RM&NS (the processes of "microevolution") over time from leading to changes in higher taxa? How does this barrier work? What evidence is there that such a barrier exists? (Hint: the statement "We haven't seen it happening." is NOT evidence. You haven't seen your deity happening either. You weren't present at the First Event. Unfortunately, pRNA didn't invent camcorders while inventing autocatalysis and self-replication. Too bad Adam and Eve didn't either.)

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, there's quite a bit that would lend credence to creationism. There are a number of other threads that discuss possibilities. IMO, you'd need to start out by showing that your particular interpretation of deity was correct, and all the rest of the world was wrong and going to hell (or whatever trips your trigger for those who deny your particular cult). After that, you could try making a couple of testable hypotheses showing undeniable evidence of divine intervention. It would have to be something pretty spectacular to convince me - maybe like a booming voice out of the sky heard simultaneously all over the world by every individual in their own language. Hey, if He wants people to fall down and worship, He needs to get their attention first.

quote:

---

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.

---

This doesn't answer the question: what would constitute such evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

Once again, you are requiring that science provide that which science cannot - and never claimed. Evidence - the evidence of the incredible diversity and at the same time relatedness of all life - is the only thing that matters. I concur that misinterpreting evidence can lead scientists down the primrose path. However, the scientific method contains built-in error correcting mechanisms. No hypothesis (let alone a theory) will be accepted as valid unless the same test can be applied by other scientists. There are, in fact, scientists who've built their entire careers on debunking the ideas of other scientists. Even the worst errors of science are sooner or later corrected by other scientists (cold fusion comes to mind, as does Archeoraptor, Haeckel's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, etc). No scientific error has EVER been corrected or even detected by a non-scientist.Can you point to a single instance of religious beliefs being self-corrected?

quote:

---

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!

---

I disagree. Science and religion are the original odd couple. They deal with completely separate and incompatible magisteria. Science deals with what is. Religion deals with what comes after. Science makes no claim to ethics or morality - any more than does nature itself. That is the proper purview of religion and belief. As long as this separation is understood and maintained, there is no conflict. Many people, some on this board, hold belief in God fully compatible with evolution and see no problem, as their religion speaks to a different aspect of their lives.Science most assuredly makes no claim to "Undeniable, Unchangeable, and Immovable" Truth (TM). The conflict arises when the highly vocal but statistically insignificant Protestant fundamentalists demand that science become subservient to their literalist interpretation of an ancient religious text, and that it conform to the dictat of their
narrow, xenophobic worldview. The evolution-deniers do so by rejecting the evidence. Evidence which, btw, has shown evolution to be true "beyond reasonable doubt".

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".

​

LUD: And then there are people who are willingly ignorant of the world around them,prefering to believe age old myths writen by superstitious people barely two steps removed from primates who understood NOTHING about the world they lived in and how it works,prefering to attribute everything they did not understand to divine intervention...including whatever natural catastrophy plagued them like earth quakes,floods,disease,ect...no offense of course.

​

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.

​

LUD:first of all,what makes you think God's a guy? This one has always puzzled me,how people today cant see the obvious projection being made onto the divine by what is essentially a PATRIARCHAL organization(the Church)...meaning the leader of the church are guys so they decided to portray God as a male figure...interestingly enough,they try to compound male superiority by wilfully attributing the original sin to the act of woman in their creation mythology. I see absolutely no reason why a being capable of creating an entire universe would constrain itself to a male form when it could be whatever it chose to be at any moment. Also,God's plan is rather obvious i think...IT gave us life,much like a parent gives birth to its children and then build this universe where we could dwell as long as we need to. I dont see the need for a plan beyond that.

​

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. 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.

​

LUD:the lump of clay from your analogy is not a sentient,living being. The inquisitive nature of man is likely simply something that our parent,God,passed along to us so we would feel compelled to learn everything there is to know about the universe we currently live in. As for the Devil,i've never met Him/Her/It and so i've never been "deceived" by Him/Her/It.

​

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.

​

LUD:Hell is little more than a threat invented by the leaders of the church to instill obediance in the people they want to dominate...I suspect it does not exists,save perhaps in the mind of those gullible enough to believe in such unGodly nonsense.

​

---

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

LUD:As for the Devil,i've never met Him/Her/It and so i've never been "deceived" by Him/Her/It.Of everything you posted, this was the only thing I felt deserved a reply. You idea of being deceived is puzzling. If you knew you were being deceived, you would no longer be deceived and would either change your way of thinking, or you would be a willing participant in the continuance of the deception, even though you yourself were no longer deceived. If you were being deceived, (and I am convinced that you are indeed totally and completely deceived), you would not recognize that you have succumbed to the deception and would continue as though you knew all the facts, being fully convinced of their inerrancy. That's the general idea behind deception. You are unaware that you are being duped by the one who is deceiving you. Your statement is not only puzzling, it is illogical.

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.

---

Proof doesn`t exsist outside maths....Evidence for Macro evolution can be found here: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htmComents?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
LUD:As for the Devil,i've never met Him/Her/It and so i've never been "deceived" by Him/Her/It.

​

Of everything you posted, this was the only thing I felt deserved a reply. You idea of being deceived is puzzling. If you knew you were being deceived, you would no longer be deceived and would either change your way of thinking, or you would be a willing participant in the continuance of the deception, even though you yourself were no longer deceived. If you were being deceived, (and I am convinced that you are indeed totally and completely deceived), you would not recognize that you have succumbed to the deception and would continue as though you knew all the facts, being fully convinced of their inerrancy. That's the general idea behind deception. You are unaware that you are being duped by the one who is deceiving you. Your statement is not only puzzling, it is illogical.

---

You are accusing ME of making completely illogical statements? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I am not deceived because i have not arrested myself on any particular conclusions on the subject of evolution vs creation. I dont say with absolute certainty that evolution is THE answer because i dont KNOW with absolute certainty. For the moment,it simply looks like the most plausible explanation. But i'm still open to changing my mind on the subject if someone brings me reasonable proof NOT ONLY THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG BUT THAT CREATION IS RIGHT,since disproving the one does not prove the other in my opinion. Thats right...just because i consider evolution the most plausible explanation of our origin does not mean that God did not create the universe...it just means,to me at least,that God created it in a way that was just beyond the compreansion of people of earlier times and they simply could not pick on the many clues left by God...so they over simplified the whole thing in terms THEY could understand. Science is slowly but surely nailing down the mechanism through which God seems to operate and explaning them to us...evolution does not try to replace or erase God...it simply shows HOW God works. It is entirely conceivable that if people 3000 years ago knew as much about the world they lived in as we do today,the biblical accounts of creation would be very different. I dont see how this point of view is in any way deceiving myself and letting the "devil" in my heart. I believe in God,love God and have a relationship with God...and it is not subject to review or rules enacted by any outside organization,holy books or organized religious cults. God gave me the ability to think so i could better decifer the world,not so i could shut my brain down and blindly accept what is easily recognizable as a PRIMITIVE understanding of the world for my anchor of faith.I also find it unfortunate that you chose not to adress my other points.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-22-2002]

In response to your question, "what is undeniable proof", I would say that it is anything that leaves absolutely no question in the mind. Science will never be able to achieve this, as we have been told repeatedly that science does not do "proofs". If that is truly correct, I see no way for science to convince alot of skeptics that the ToE is valid. I learned in another forum, (the sister board to this one), that few, if any evolutionists are familiar with the "tinman argument" as opposed to the "strawman argument".For those who are unfamiliar with the term "tinman", (this should exclude many of those who are involved in the legal and law enforcement fields, as it is used readily in both those fields), it is a reference to an argument that is supported by the suppression of damning evidence. Law enforcement officials regularly see examples of the "tinman argument" in courts, where evidence that can clearly prove innocense or guilt, is suppressed because of specific legal technicalities. "Smoking Gun" evidence is similiar to this as both are seen as damning evidence by the opposition and if it can be suppressed the oppositions case is then strengthened by that suppression of evidence.Tinmans' application in science refers to evidence or scientists that run contrary to a popularly held belief or position. Suppress and/or the evidence or discredit the scientist in an attempt to strengthen your position. Science is a wonderful tool that is often misused by scientists in an attempt to either prove their own theories or falsify someone elses theory. Science is rarely a search for truth because the truth is an unknown and an abstract as far as science is concerned. The fact that many say science doesn't do proofs is confirmation that science will never satisfy the skeptics enough to make them change their views 180 degrees. Science prefers to deal in concepts, and as the facts change the concept can change along with the facts.Undeniable proof must be something that withstands all tests and all scrutiny. It is difficult to give specifics, at least specifics that would do this topic justice. Obviously one undeniable proof that macro-evolution does indeed happen would be to see it actually happen. The observance of one species developing into a distinct and seperate species, say something something along the lines of a shark developing into a land mammal that eats grass or a monkey developing into another branch of a distinct and undeniable human species, something along these lines would have to be considered an undeniable proof as far as macro-evolution goes. Short of another "Cambrian Explosion" occurring, I don't see this as a real possibility or probability.I am afraid that if a hardcore creationist, especially a YEC, were to discover such an occurance, they would likely initiate the "tinman" defense by eliminating or suppressing the evidence, in much the same manner that a hardcore evolutionist would do the exact same thing in order to protect their own position and beliefs. Hardcore skeptics on both sides are usually pretty diehard when it comes to their personal beliefs being shattered.

Hi Jet, welcome aboard!Your views are very similar to Redstang's in that you both believe acceptance of evolution is maintained only through a lengthy conspiracy, but you both leave unanswered the big questions of how and why? How could scientists suppress and/or manufacture evidence of evolution over a period of a couple hundred years without anyone blowing the whistle? And why on earth would they do this? What is the motivation? Those who accept evolution come from all faiths and all countries. What is the unifying factor and goal behind which they could all unite in order to successfully perpetuate this lie.If a theory has a sparse factual foundation then you would expect it's supporters to be split among a number of scuffling factions, but there is instead remarkable unanimity about evolution within science. How could this unanimity develop in the absence of factual support?Religion, on the other hand, is split into many factions, and this is reflected on a smaller scale by the disparate views within Creationism, such as YEC, OEC and intelligent design.

---

Jet writes:
Undeniable proof must be something that withstands all tests and all scrutiny...Obviously one undeniable proof that macro-evolution does indeed happen would be to see it actually happen.

---

There is no such thing as proof in science. Actual observation of macro-evolution in action would not be proof but simply evidence supporting macro-evolution. The more observations, the more evidence, the more sure we become, but that level of certainty never reaches the level of proof because of the principle of tentativity. I'm sure this was all explained over at Yahoo.That being said, people, including scientists, often use the word "proof", but all they mean by this is "very strong evidence that would be acceptable by most people in the field."Eternal truths are the province of religion. If you've come to science seeking eternal truths then you're barking up the wrong tree.--Percy

I'm trying to convince people of the creationist point. I came upon this website while surfing to find info for my persuasive paper, which the topic is Creationism vs. Evolutionism (I'm for the earlier if you can't tell yet). It interested me so I started reading, then I was startled and scared to read all of the evoultionists' posts. You keep saying, I need proof, where's your proof. Well I ask you, where is your proof? I have all the proof I need, God's Word. Thomas, a disciple, was one of those seeing is believing people. After Jesus appeared to him, He said him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I have more proof than that though too. I've seen angels and have heard them talk. When I was little I fell in the family pool, I had snuck outside. I couldn't swim yet and started to panic. My mom and dad thought I was in my room (I was sent there for telling my mom she was a stupid butt face) , they were in my brother's room, changing his diaper (my brother was 2 mos. old). So I had no way to get out and I was only 5. So I was really scared and I started to sink. Then all of the sudden this beautiful man was in the pool with me (he wasn't wet though, and he just sort of floated there) he was really bright and white. He said, "It's ok Victoria." And he smiled at me. Then I started floating towards the top towards the ladder. I climbed up it without really even climbing. Then the angel was next to me, took my hand and walked me to the lounge chairs. I layed on one and he stood next to me. He just stood there smiling gently at me. The next thing I remember is my mom waking me up saying, "Vicky? Victoria? Are you all right?" I said yeah but that I fell in the pool and a pretty man with a pretty white dress was in there too and stayed with me when I took my nap. My mom started crying and said "I went in your room and saw you weren't in there. Then I thought you might be in the bathroom, so when I turned back around, this man was there and he smiled and pointed out the window. I looked and saw you sleeping on the chair all wet. I turned back around and he was gone." Not only that my best friend was in the hospital dying from internal bleeding in her head (she was in an accident). She was feeling weaker and weaker and her head was literaly killing her. She was trying to stay alive until her family arived so she could say good bye. It wasn't looking likely. She was laying there, waiting when a woman appeared. Jill thought it was a volunteer. The woman said, "Jill, God has decided to let you live. He has big plans for you." Jill shot her a double take and asked, "Who are you?" Then woman smiled gently touched Jill's forehead and said, "Mary" and disapeared (along with the pain). Then her parents walked in. "Get the doctor, please." Jill said. Her parents pushed the emergancy button. The doctor's ran in. Jill insisted that she was better. The doctors insisted she wasn't, but gave in to do tests on her head. Turns out no internal bleeding, no signs that there ever was, no damage. She is now engaged to be married and is starting her own business. I have many other stories. But I have to go eat. Please, don't think I'm stubborn, I'm debating with an open mind, but closed heart if you will. All I need is God and I'll be fine. I could back down now, and leave this discussion forever, but still fill like I let God down. I would hate myself if I found out one of you died and never accepted God and went to Hell.------------------
God Bless,
Victoria

Victoria, you seemed to have had one of those all important personal revelations.On the (not really) other side of the coin, the old universe/earth and the evolution of the universe, earth, and the life on earth still remains a strongly scientificly supported matter.Regards,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Hello Victoria,Would it be too much to ask, that you break your essay into paragraphs? It would be much easier on the eyes I think.Thank you.----------
db

Victoria,Wow, nice story! I fear that God is going to have to do that to every non-christian, if he did, this board wouldn't exist. The question is, why doesn't he?Not that I doubt you, but the "evolutionist" camp requires evidence in order to believe anything. This is, I hope you understand, perfectly reasonable. And although I applaud you doing something that you believe is going to help others, there are wider issues, such as the HUUUGE body of evidence supporting evolution, a 4.5 bn year old earth (not that I know you're a YEC),etc. that you need to explain. Compared to zero evidence for a supernatural God.Is God deceiving us? Clearly someones got it wrong! Science is extremely rigorous in its method. Out of observation, a hypothesis is formed. That hypothesis has predictions & potential falsifications. If the predictions are born out, & none of the falsifications realised, then you have a scientific theory. The problem creationists have, is to overturn a theory, they have to reinterpret ALL the evidence for a theory & make it fit a creationist theory. Unfortunately none do. They take some things, but cannot take them all. Meaning the scientific theory remains the better one. It is important to note, that ALL scientific theories are tentative, that is to say, none of them claim to be 100% proven. Science PROVES nothing. What it does try to do is make something so obvious, that it is unreasonable to deny it. But proof, no. Would be nice if it could.Take care,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godismyfather:
I'm trying to convince people of the creationist point. I came upon this website while surfing to find info for my persuasive paper, which the topic is Creationism vs. Evolutionism (I'm for the earlier if you can't tell yet). It interested me so I started reading, then I was startled and scared to read all of the evoultionists' posts. You keep saying, I need proof, where's your proof. Well I ask you, where is your proof? I have all the proof I need, God's Word. Thomas, a disciple, was one of those seeing is believing people. After Jesus appeared to him, He said him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I have more proof than that though too. I've seen angels and have heard them talk. When I was little I fell in the family pool, I had snuck outside. I couldn't swim yet and started to panic. My mom and dad thought I was in my room (I was sent there for telling my mom she was a stupid butt face) , they were in my brother's room, changing his diaper (my brother was 2 mos. old). So I had no way to get out and I was only 5. So I was really scared and I started to sink. Then all of the sudden this beautiful man was in the pool with me (he wasn't wet though, and he just sort of floated there) he was really bright and white. He said, "It's ok Victoria." And he smiled at me. Then I started floating towards the top towards the ladder. I climbed up it without really even climbing. Then the angel was next to me, took my hand and walked me to the lounge chairs. I layed on one and he stood next to me. He just stood there smiling gently at me. The next thing I remember is my mom waking me up saying, "Vicky? Victoria? Are you all right?" I said yeah but that I fell in the pool and a pretty man with a pretty white dress was in there too and stayed with me when I took my nap. My mom started crying and said "I went in your room and saw you weren't in there. Then I thought you might be in the bathroom, so when I turned back around, this man was there and he smiled and pointed out the window. I looked and saw you sleeping on the chair all wet. I turned back around and he was gone." Not only that my best friend was in the hospital dying from internal bleeding in her head (she was in an accident). She was feeling weaker and weaker and her head was literaly killing her. She was trying to stay alive until her family arived so she could say good bye. It wasn't looking likely. She was laying there, waiting when a woman appeared. Jill thought it was a volunteer. The woman said, "Jill, God has decided to let you live. He has big plans for you." Jill shot her a double take and asked, "Who are you?" Then woman smiled gently touched Jill's forehead and said, "Mary" and disapeared (along with the pain). Then her parents walked in. "Get the doctor, please." Jill said. Her parents pushed the emergancy button. The doctor's ran in. Jill insisted that she was better. The doctors insisted she wasn't, but gave in to do tests on her head. Turns out no internal bleeding, no signs that there ever was, no damage. She is now engaged to be married and is starting her own business. I have many other stories. But I have to go eat. Please, don't think I'm stubborn, I'm debating with an open mind, but closed heart if you will. All I need is God and I'll be fine. I could back down now, and leave this discussion forever, but still fill like I let God down. I would hate myself if I found out one of you died and never accepted God and went to Hell.

​

---

Oh brother...another one. Nice little story you made up there. Ever considered going into pro fiction writing?