What would be enough proof for a creationist?

Tricky, ain't these things.Apologies for button-pushing ad infinitum. That happens only to me.

quote:

---

You can say that again. Actually, don't.

---

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?

quote:

---

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?

---

--The ultimate basis for the age of the earth comes from geochronology (radioisotopic dating in particular). If we were to come to accept that geochronology indicates that the earth is >4 Ga, it is only reasonable to accept that fossil life throughout the phanerozoic (the last ~550 my) is a record of evolution of those life forms. Whether God was progressively creating and eliminating various populations of life, or that the essentially deistic/atheistic evolution of life occured throughout that time is up to you.-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2005 21:33 AMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2005 21:34 AM

Excellent point. Thanks.

quote:

---

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."

---

I require no such thing.Possibilities are limitless, and I would not observe or accept limits other than my physical own.See evidence of evolution? Not seeing it is dishonesty and denial and irrational. Those qualified happen across the board.I am, however, disinclined to judge people on their beliefs. Neither do I wish to be judged.So, why do you think many Christians refuse evolution? ??

---

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

Requiring an answer to biogenesis before considering the validity of evolution is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Evolution is a question of how, not when or why.Yes, the answer to the biogenesis would solve many problems. Till then I hope Ned gets a more reasoned discussion than evasion and multiple reposts that are more expected from some of the boot camp denizens.Evolution deals with processes after life started- all else is philosophy,theology, or cosmology pressed past its limits.Don't get me wrong tho; from your previous posts I see that you are generally thoughtful on topics and are on the higher end of (what I assume) creationist or theistic evolution POV; but if I am putting words in your mouth I apologize in advance.edit...via post 31 those reposts were inadvertant...sorry about the boot camp smack banana boyThis message has been edited by Arkansas Banana Boy, 01-28-2005 02:40 AM

quote:

---

Evolution deals with processes after life started- all else is philosophy,theology, or cosmology pressed past its limits.

---

All else is philosophy, eh? Interesting philosophy

In my view, I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of transitionals or any other of these details. The answer to the question, "What would be enough proof?" is "no amount of proof."The reasons for the rejection of evolution are emotional in nature.

quote:

---

Requiring an answer to biogenesis before considering the validity of evolution is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Evolution is a question of how, not when or why.

​

Yes, the answer to the biogenesis would solve many problems. Till then I hope Ned gets a more reasoned discussion than evasion and multiple reposts that are more expected from some of the boot camp denizens.

​

Evolution deals with processes after life started- all else is philosophy,theology, or cosmology pressed past its limits.

​

Don't get me wrong tho; from your previous posts I see that you are generally thoughtful on topics and are on the higher end of (what I assume) creationist or theistic evolution POV; but if I am putting words in your mouth I apologize in advance.

​

edit...via post 31 those reposts were inadvertant...sorry about the boot camp smack banana boy

---

I have absolutely no issue with science, until it makes claims it cannot substantiate. And it cannot substantiate 'first piece'.Ned gets what he asks for - generally speaking - as condescending as you are speaking to me here forgetting that I have reason to believe as strong as you have reason not to believe.Don't get me wrong, tho, you do as you see fit, and then accept what is given in return. It's something like....you think people are idiots for believing there is a God, people think you are one for not believing. It accomplishes nothing, certainly does not add to progress.

quote:

---

"no amount of proof."

---

In a general setting, to educate the masses, science has failed.And will continue to do so. Controversy where the potential for none is a profound possibility. Science, looking down its nose at the hapless creatures who cannot possibly understand goals.

---

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

Okay, I think we can move on. Pecos has been clear that he will accept evolution after abiogenesis is proven in the lab.Are there any other creationists that would like to provide their particular view on what evidence you require before accepting evolution? Anyone?

Agreed Q... and I don't necessarily believe anyone here to be an idiot because i disaggree.

quote:

---

Okay, I think we can move on. Pecos has been clear that he will accept evolution after abiogenesis is proven in the lab.

---

I must not be making myself clear.I'm fine with everything science has to offer. The infinitesimal and the grandiose. All of it.But not the contention that it happened accidentally, or whatever term you wish to use.Accepts evolution and all scientific discoveries. And why not?
Without the need to know, we wouldn't know, and I have a need to know.
And, I believe in God.So, let's move on.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 01-28-2005 13:03 AM

---

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

Apparently not. Starting from the assumption that abiogenesis and evolution are two distinct concepts, and that "evolution" is outlined and explained by the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and that it is defined as:

quote:

---

In a broad sense, the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics, and changes in their proportions over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon. (Futuyma, DJ, 1998, Evolutionary Biology, 3d Edition, Sinauer Associates, glossary pg 766). Emphasis in original.

---

Do you or do you not accept evolution? If the answer is yes, then what the hell are you arguing with everyone about?