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.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

--Without going into too much detail, at Yellowstone there are copious outcrops of supposed in situ fossil forests. I believe that an allochthonous model of their formation is viable, however I have a prediction for these successive fossil forests which can potentially distinguish between uniformitarian geology and young earth catastrophic geology. There are at least 9-12 successive 'fossil forests' in Yellowstone which are presumed to all be Eocene. Analysis of the associated paleosols (appearing to be incipient andisols) with rooted upright 'in situ' trees as well as data from dendrochronological studies suggest that each of these forests were only present for a few hundred to a few thousand years at most in an in situ growth scenario. Thus if there are no major unconformities and are successive, the whole section would have been deposited in far less than ~50 ky with time to spare which is not very significant amount of geologic time.On the other hand, if these forrests are allochthonous and burried in growth position in a "catastrophic" setting, each successive forest would require some time in between--I would argue at least a few days.Now then, CPT requires accelerated decay. And furthermore, the following brief geochronological analysis suggests that such a period of accelerated decay would have been relatively constant throughout geologic time.Using Loudmouth's thread here as a reference: http://EvC Forum: YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands -->EvC Forum: YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands Progressive aging of the seafloor (ie, radioisotopic decay) is concurrent with and constant relative to the rate of seafloor spreading. If radioisotopic decay decelerated to current rates, the slope would not be constant and would look more like a curve of root t(time) dependance. The same applies if the rate of seafloor spreading decelerated to current rates. And if radioisotopic decay and the rate of seafloor spreading decelerated together, there still should be more scatter in the data unless they decelerated proportionally--which is unlikely.Therefore, each day of accelerated decay would be approximately 500,000,000/365 => 1.37 my.Thus I would predict that those successive fossil forests in Yellowstone would constitute at least 9x(1.37), where x=the average amount of time between successive fossil forests. To find a minimum, lets say this value is 2 days:9(2)(1.37) = 24.66 myOr a difference of several orders of magnitude from 50 ky.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).There are basaltic lava flows throughout the lamar ridge formation in Eocene Yellowstone. These flows could be dated and compared against my predictions.-Chris

quote:

---

"but you are still missing pieces".

---

To be exact.....that very very first initial piece from which all pieces fell....into place.I want to know whence it came? Provide its source, positive.
Thank you.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

So if we don't know where the first piece (first life ? I presume in this case)came from then we can't say anything about what happened to living things after that?If that is your firm position then, for now, you may as well drop the discussion.It would be interesting to see the logic behind that though. Would you elaborate?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 21:43 AM

quote:

---

So if we don't know where the first piece (first life ? I presume in this case)came from then we can't say anything about what happened to living things after that?

---

Hi again, Ned. What do you mean by "if"?

quote:

---

If that is your firm position then, for now, you may as well drop the discussion.

---

Consider it dropped.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to see the logic behind that though. Would you elaborate?

---

You do not see logic in my question? Science is an incomparable drama playing itself out against the backdrop of the universe. It brings to me more than I could possibly absorb in several additional lifetimes, except that one thing, that FIRST thing.
I want that first thing, Ned. Can you blame me?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

"if" is part of a logical construction. In this case it seem you are suggesting that it goes like this:1) If we don't know the origin of life then we can't comment on it's subsequent evolution.
2) We don't know the orgin of life.
3) Therefore any idea of the subsequent evolution of life is wrong.I don't see why the first statment is true. I'm asking you to elaborate in detail. You have a very specific question that you want answered. It is the question that we all ask: "Where did it all come from?"That is of great interest to cosmolgists or chemist/biologists of course (depending on what you mean by "first piece" which you still haven't made clear).We don't know. There are many things we don't know. We may or may not answer any given one of the questions that have no answer today.However, I don't understand what that has to do with questions for which we do have very good answers. Would you like to make that clear?

i believe there wording is "any." 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. see, creationism really has nothing to do with god, it's about classify animals into kinds.i've asked creationists before what proof they required, and they described several things that would actually disprove evolution. cats giving birth to dogs and so forth.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-22-2005 02:10 AM

quote:

---

quote:"but you are still missing pieces".

​

To be exact.....that very very first initial piece from which all pieces fell....into place.

​

I want to know whence it came? Provide its source, positive.
Thank you.

---

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'.

quote:

---

1) If we don't know the origin of life then we can't comment on it's subsequent evolution.
2) We don't know the orgin of life.
3) Therefore any idea of the subsequent evolution of life is wrong.

---

You may comment on anything you wish, draw conclusions on anything you wish, and please do. But that wont make that question go away. Why do you mind it?

quote:

---

However, I don't understand what that has to do with questions for which we do have very good answers. Would you like to make that clear?

---

I have made it clear, unless you don't understand my method of providing clarity. See my words again below.

quote:

---

Science is an incomparable drama playing itself out against the backdrop of the universe. It brings to me more than I could possibly absorb in several additional lifetimes

---

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

i've asked creationists before what proof they required, and they described several things that would actually disprove evolution. cats giving birth to dogs and so forth.

---

You need to speak with some that actually know what that is. The way you would ask a brainsurgeon to check what's wrong with your brain, or even a master at trepanation.Well, don't. Better laughs this way, and better material for criticism.Creationism according to my trusted dictionary:
"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of creation of the universe and of all living things related in the bible".
Where did you find your meaning of what creation is?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

The PRobelm is not the transitional in essence but the background and foreground that said indiviuality is OBSERVERD in which contrasts with the outside world in ways that DO NOT lead to the same morphological SUBJECTIViTY within the brain of the taxonomist myopically viewing the shapes by blocking out the rest surround (looking in a microscope, etc). There is a psychological element here not needed if one is already established and effects up and comers and some hangers on but not the objective body of discussed work except in so far as it DID depend actually on Darwin's objectifie view in the community.

Of course, you can ask the question.My question remains unanswered. What does the lack of knowledge of primal origins have to do with what happens afterward?Don't play little word games, try actually thinking about your answer this time.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2005 11:36 AM

quote:

---

I'm just too slow at this.
It is clear you don't want to actually answer questions. Enough, I'll not waste time.

---

You don't like the way I have answered your questions. You want them answered your way, the answers you want, the answers you think you should have. I believe I have answered them, according to the way I answer such questions. You also suggested I not participate in this discussion. Now, I have discussed here more than appropriate after I agreed to abide by your request.
I'm not a scientist, and don't need to be one to appreciate what science affords. ALL OF SCIENCE. All the statements science makes, including the non-existence of God. That simply does not trouble me, and I can still, and gladly do, give science the respect and admiration it deserves.
And, I hope with all sincerity, that science finds that very first thing that started it all.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

Sorry, I thought better of my post and edited it out. I thought it would be before it was read.One issue here was about "proof" for evolution. I'm asking what the origin of things has to do with proof for evolution. Over and over again, we have to repeat that science says nothing about either the existance or non-existance of God. Many scientists are believers.

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?