Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?

I feel quite odd making this thread...but since no Creationists have yet made it, and it runs in the same vein as our recent "what would convince a Creationist" threads...LucytheApe posted this in one of those threads: Let's run with this. For those of us who are evolutionists, would any of us accept evidence of the "biblical model" if it were presented? hypothetically speaking, if evidence along the lines of a universal, cross-species genetic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, combined with a global sedimentary layer, or if it were somehow proven incontrovertibly that humans were created and did not evolve, or other such evidence was discovered that completely blew the current models and understanding of history, geology, physics, and biology out of the water...what would be the reaction of Evolutionists?I'll provide my answer to Lucy right now: I'm willing to listen to real evidence of a global flood right now. I don't care if the Bible is historically accurate from that standpoint - if you have evidence that current models are wrong and that the Great Flood happened as described int he Bible, present it. Please. If that evidence is studied and verified as accurate, I will recant all of my previous statements regarding the falsehood of the Biblical Flood account.See, I don't care about any sort of "presupposition" or "agenda." My only agenda is the desire for accuracy. I want to know and understand the truth, as closely as we are able to verifiably determine. Give me incontrovertible evidence of any event, Noachian Flood included, and I will believe it. I follow the evidence.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Faith and belief, I suppose.

False dilemma. Science doesn't start with the goal of proving anything at all, whether that be evolution, creation, or anything else.Scientists simply propose the model that best fits the evidence observed, and then rigorously test that model to do away with any inaccuracies.If a Creationist model was proposed that explained the observed evidence and then stood up to rigorous testing without failing, it could be considered a viable scientific theory. Accuracy is all that matters in science.Scientists in general have been searching for evidence of the Biblical myths since serious scientific inquiry began. Unfortunately for literalists, the evidence uncovered thus far has soundly contradicted several Biblical claims, like that of the Flood, and of a young Earth.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I would absolutely love to hear it. But I would bet that would be best placed in a new thread, lest it completely derail this one.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

See, here's another problem, ICANT. IF the world was actually divided up in a short period of time like you're saying here, there would be evidence of that rapid motion - continents don't shift thousands of miles in a period of a few scant years without leaving truckloads of evidence to support that model.So again - if I saw evidence that the supercontinent was divided up in a short period of time, and that all of the tectonic plate movement we see evidence of actually happened in a period of even a few thousand years (being generous), I would give credence to your belief.The problem is that this evidence doesn't exist. More specifically, we have directly contradicting evidence - the Earth would look very different if, even over a period of 1000 years, all of the continents split apart and collided like they're doing now. The slow buildup in geological layers (and we know it's slow becasue we can measure the rate it's happening today) would look completely different - like a smaller number of very large layers as opposed to many very small layers. Volcanoes leave a sort of "trail" as the continents move, because the magma comes up in the same place (this is why the Hawaiian islands look the way they do - the tectonic plate has moved, so the volcano keeps re-creating more of them). If the plates had moved rapidly over a few thousand years, we would see a very different picture, where such "trails" are far more spread out.You can, of course, handwave it all away by saying "god usd his power to make it all look this way and prevent the patterns you say we'd see." That's fine, but if you're going that deep into the "goddidit" explanation, you may as well stop trying to explain anything at all. And there won't be any evidence of anything, and so no reason for me to believe you.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

The Bible expects me to believe it. And the topic of this thread concerns what would convince an evolutionist - not ICANT's place to preach. Yes. Not "at one time." It's a continuous process still going on today, and it's been happening for a very, very long time. No. The oceans were already here - otherwise you couldn't very well say that the land was all in one place, unles you mean that the whole Earth was land - which is completely false. The only difference in terms of the oceans of Pangea vs today is simply that the continents now provide convenient borders for us to name the water in different location as seperate oceans. That's a human construct based on incomplete understandings when the oceans were named, and kept because it aids in navigation. Kind of. They have been forming and still are forming due to the drifting of tectonic plates. You're taking extreme generalities and calling them "true" when the specifics are compeltely inaccurate. Laughably inaccurate, in fact. There has to be a timeline - I said "thousands of years" becasue it had to have happened after the Earth was "created" in your model, yes? Isn't that less than 10,000 years ago? It also needs to have happened before our best history records, so it had to have happened before 3000 years ago or so at the minimum. We'll ignore the fact that there are many cultures still existing today who have existed for over 10,000 years and yet have no recorded history in terms of records or even legends regarding an ancient Flood or the movement of the continents or Babel (the Australian Aborigines come to mind).

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

... a fantastical tale based upon a far more mundane real event? Yes. So what if we prove one part, just one, false? Does it work in reverse?What if J. K. Rowling claims that the Harry Potter books were inspired by god, or that Harry himself related the whole story to her personally over tea? Does the existence of London prove Harry Potter true? Completely false. The destruction of Jericho, for instance, seems to have happened (though not the way the bible describes - the walls have collapsed incorrectly for the story to be true). This does not mean there was a worldwide Flood. The Romans did rule Jerusalem in the appropriate time period as described in the Bible, and that does not prove Exodus. They are compeltely disconnected events and seperate claims made by a single comnglomerated text, and each can be verified or falsified individually.Your literalism is easy to disprove: various events in the Bible should have left a great deal of evidence, which is conspicuously missing. The Flood, for example, has no evidence, and there is a mountain of evidence contradicting a global Flood. Exodus should have left a massive amount of evidence from 40 years of being nomads across the desert (we find evidence of small nomadic groups in similar deserts), but there is nothing left of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, a number that should be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions from what I recall of the numbers in the Bible. There is nothing in Egyptian history concerning a mass exodus of Hebrew slaves (or even the presence of Hebrew slaves), or the plagues, or the killing of the firstborn.Since we can show several claims in the Bible to be false or at least grossly exaggerated (far more likely), does that mean the whole thing is bollocks?If the evidence was there, I'd believe in the Bible. If all of its claims were consistently verified, I would accept it as an authoritative book regarding history, and even accept it as evidence of a deity. But since that's not the case...

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

You would find a world much different from ours.Leaving aside all of the volcanic activity that would go on if you shifted the continents from Pangea to what we see now in only a couple of years, and all of the earthquakes that would be going on basically nonstop all over the globe of a magnitude so large we don't even have a number on the Richter scale for them (and somebody would have written about that)...In geology, we see rock layers that have folded. The rock literally flexes and folds under the extreme pressures of tectonic motion. But rock doesn't only flex - it crushes, and it fractures. This is a great example of a fold in rock.If the tectonic plate movements of billions of years were concentrated into only one or two, the pressure would be far too great for the rock to simply bend - it would fracture, or even be crushed, somewhat like a tree branch. A little pressure and it bends, too much and it breaks. With the kind of force you are suggesting, it would be completely pulverized. Current plate movement ranges from 1-10cm/year or so. You're talking about over a thousand miles of movement in a single year.The flood layer should still be present, but would be among all of the fragmented rock.There's more to contradict your silliness, but this is enough to outright refute it, so we won't bother with the rest.In other words, ICANT, what we see completely and directly contradicts your silly idea derived from stoneage mythology.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Of course you are. You're trying to show that science and the Bible agree on something they most certainly do not agree on. You're demonstrating some of the most massive cognitive dissonance I've ever seen, paying attention only to those parts of the conversation you believe agree with your existing ideas, and completely ignoring everything else. That the Bible says 1 and 2 can be true, assuming your interpretation of the text is correct. 3 and 4 are also true. But saying that this means that the Bible and science agree demonstrates either a total lack of comprehension on your part, or deliberate lying. Science most certainly does not say that the continents were divided in anyone's lifetime - no humans were around that long ago, and it happened over such a long period that to say it happened over the span of even a biblical lifetime is pure insanity.Continuing to ignore the details that refute your position that science and the Bible agree demonstrates that you either cannot understand the subject matter, or you prefer to lie.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.