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

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

---

Percy wrote:
There is no such thing as proof in science.

---

---

Jet replied:
This is where we disagree.

---

When used in a scientific context I defined proof to mean, , "very strong evidence that would be acceptable by most people in the field." As long as you're using that definition of "proof" then we agree just fine.But if by "proof" you mean establishing something to be true forever and for all time then you are in conflict with the principle of tentativity. I didn't cover this before because I assumed it had already been covered over at Yahoo, but maybe it wasn't. Anyway, tentativity means that theories are always open to modification or even replacement in light of new knowledge or insights.Theories have to be tentative, otherwise we could never replace old theory with improved theory. Consider the contradictions involved if we "proved" theories like Newton's laws of motion to be true for all time. How would we replace this timeless theory with the theoretical improvements of relativity?Such conundrums are avoided by the principle of tentativity. This means that though we can increase our certainty in a theory by performing more experiments and gathering more evidence, the level of certainty never reaches 100%.While you will often hear it said that a theory is "proven", this is just a convenient figure of speech and does not mean a theory is true for all time. When people say a theory is "proven" they only mean that the evidence has reached a level where the theory is, as Gould says, "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."--Percy

Jet,Could you please take it down a few notches? I'm not in a good mood this week having apparently lost SLP after temporarily suspending his posting privileges for inflammatory responses just like yours. In email he expressed his suspicion that I'm biased against evolutionists. Larry quit the Yahoo club after I admonished you both, apparently feeling the same way.This site will not serve as a venue for flame wars. The goal is information, not obfuscation. The goal is light, not heat. If you cannot maintain a moderate tone in discussions here and stay on-topic then you will not be permitted here.I think it's unfortunate that your employer was spammed, but unless you have evidence you have no call to blame people here for this. If your employer has established a reputation for antagonism anything like the one you're building here on a personal level then the attack could have come from any almost anyone offended by obnoxious behavior.Please follow the guidelines, especially rules 1 and 2 which require staying on-topic, treating others with respect, and maintaining a moderate tone. I'm inflexible on this. Next offence gets you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.--Percy

Jet,

---

Jet writes:
I recently invited some friends from the old club to participate in the many debates here. When they came in and saw that Percy and Larry were running the place and schraf and the old gang were just as obstinate as ever, they decided to find a more evenly balanced club where some real honest debate is occurring without the evo's "holier than thou" condescending attitudes that are so prevalent within this old group.

---

You have a warped sense of reality and a short memory. As I just told you in message 44, Larry, an evolutionist and moderator of Topical Discussion should he ever return, quit when I issued a warning to both he and you because he thought I was being blatantly biased toward you. SLP quit participation here when I gave him two consecutive 24-hour suspensions of posting privileges for abusing Fred Williams - he felt evolutionists shouldn't be disciplining other evolutionists. SLP is the only person who's ever had a 24-hour suspension here so far, while no Creationist has ever had a suspension here. Are you trying to change that?If you don't like this board, if you think it's unfair, then go somewhere else. But if you're going to post messages here then they must have content relevant to the discussion and not be broadsides aimed at the opposition.The guidelines for this board are intended to create an environment where discussion stays focused on issues instead of personalities. Please help this be that kind of place. Thank you.--Percy

Please stay on topic and let the moderator deal with the rest. Thanks!--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

Jet writes:

---

That was post #108, not #8. Please pay attention if you expect to continue to be responded to.

---

Let me get this straight. You'll no longer respond to people who make errors in typing?Good grief!--Percy

Jet writes:

---

When I have the desire to discuss and debate with school children, I will visit the nearest elementary school. Until that time, I expect a certain degree of logic and reason to be employed by those I engage. I do not believe that is asking too much.

---

So your answer to John's request for clarification is that due to a deficit in logic and reasoning he isn't worthy?Unbelievable!Hey, moderator, Precipitate or whatever your name is, how about putting together a Survivor type format and let us start voting people off the board!--Percy

Why don't you prove John wrong by actually saying something? Your last two messages average a half-line of text each, so I'd give the edge to John at this point.--Percy

Very intriguing post. Very interesting.

Martin writes:

---

Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.

---

But the Lord works in mysterious ways. How can you pretend to know in what way God will reveal his presence? By what set of rules do you conclude that he would burn a bush but not consume it, wrestle the night long with Jacob, answer the prayers of children, place tears on paintings of the virgin Mary, but not alter the paths of billiard balls.

---

But regarding ultimate origins, do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator. If the answer is "No; but we must, at the onset, by definition, rule out that possibility..."

---

That for which we have no evidence can by no means be ruled out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All it means is that we have no evidence. But theories are formed around evidence, not around absence of evidence.Science is about studying and understanding the universe though our five natural senses, while religion is about exploring the nature and meaning of life itself. It trivializes this noble endeavor to turn it aside from spiritual realities to instead focus on the mere materialism of rocks and fossils.

---

Given the "uncompared" (because I am not knowledgeable of all the religious alternatives) belief in Christ, I'll allude to the training of bankers to detect counterfeit currency. They are not shown vast amounts of fake bills so that they can better identify fake bills. It is my understanding that they simply study the real thing, and that alone enables them to identify fakes. This is a parallel to one who accepts Christian doctrine in a world of religious counterfeits.

---

Your banker logic is just as valid for the Moslem and the Hindu and the Buddhist and so on. So far you haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion.

---

My replies above point out how naturalism is an inherently assumptive statement of faith. And too, naturalists use all of the scientific data that they can muster in order to rationalize their fundamentally metaphysical perspective...

---

I guess if you wax sufficiently philosophical you can make anything seem ethereal and insubstantive, but the facts show that Creationism is a product of just one of many religions and is itself split among many viewpoints that place us on both a billions-year-old earth and a thousands-year-old earth, flooded from above and flooded from below. That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.--Percy

Martin J. Koszegi writes:

---

Are you, as a naturalist, denying the possibility that God exists?

---

I believe in God, just not the Christian God of the Bible.

---

If indeed you cannot assert that God does not exist, don't you see the problem with a definition of science that doesn't allow at least for the possibility of his existence?

---

I think this has already been said, but science does *not* rule out God. The absence of physical evidence for God cannot be construed as evidence of his nonexistence. To the extent that God manifests himself in the material world apparent to our senses, science by all means allows for the possibility of God.If you are instead referring to a God who is never apparent to the five senses, which wouldn't be the God of the Bible I wouldn't think, then while science does not rule him out, neither can it establish any position on him. On those issues for which there is no evidence science must remain silent. And once again, silence cannot be interpreted as supporting the non-existence of God. Absence of evidence in science is not equivalent to pleading the fifth in court where silence strongly implies guilt (the judge's instructions to the jury to the contrary).

Percy writes:

---

Your banker logic is just as valid for the Moslem and the Hindu and the Buddhist and so on. So far you haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion.

---

Martin replies:

---

Their beliefs aren't substantiated with apologetical-class data.

---

The Moslems are as industrious in producing their apologetics as Christians are theirs. Other than displaying the typical Christian conceit that probably derives from the wealthiest countries being primarily Christian, you still haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion. How do you justify ignoring the views on origins of other religions?

Percy writes:

---

That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.

---

Martin replies:

---

Consider also the dissent that exists within naturalistic ranks.

---

What dissent? By "dissent" are you referring to esoteric areas at the very boundaries of knowledge like string theory or dark matter? At the level of detail of discussion here there is certainly no "dissent". For instance, in the debate about human origins there's plenty of disagreement and argument about the structure of the human evolutionary tree, but all the participants believe we evolved, all accept the theory of evolution, all accept that the earth is billions of years old, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, and they accept them because of the supporting evidence.In contrast, Creationists believe the world is billions of years old and thousands of years old, that the flood water came from a vapor canopy or sprang from beneath the ground or came from glaciers, that paleocurrents laid down the sedimentary layers or that they simply came from the flood, that there was a long pre-flood period where sedimentary layers were laid down and that there wasn't, that 2LOT rules out evolution and it doesn't, that information theory rules out evolution and it doesn't, that microbiological structures are irreducibly complex and evidence of God and they're not, that God modified the laws of physics in the recent past and he didn't, and on and on. When evidence isn't a consideration then any position is tenable, which brings us to this:

---

Nobody has a right to Christian faith unless that faith is based upon reality. Part of reality that Christian faith addresses is origins.

---

But Creationism ignores reality in favor of revelation. As a well-known Creationist once said, "Where the Bible and science disagree, then science can go to hell." (sic) Duane Gish in several of his books has stated that where science and the Bible differ one must accept the Biblical account. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) even has a statement of belief that one must sign before joining. Even TB concedes his views aren't yet science as he seeks evidence for events which as yet have no evidence.God's testimony in nature speaks to us much more faithfully then men's testimony in the Bible. Creationists ignore God's true word in the wind and stars to listen to the words of mere men. Your faith is not based upon reality, but rather upon a belief that the will of men can eventually cause reality to yield to a book.--Percy