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

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.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.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!

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.

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.

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.

Percy: "There is no such thing as proof in science."This is where we disagree. I contend that science not only can provide proofs but has indeed done so and continues to do so. Consider the existance of the microscopic world. What was once nothing more than an unproveable contention is now an established scientific fact, a "proven" fact. Would you argue that science has not proven that the microscopic world does indeed exist? If so, why?

I feel no need to preach to those who have heard the Word already and have chosen to reject it. I would say, however, that the most vehement proselytizers today are the fringe evolutionists. Their desire to propagandize the world with their doctrine while, under the guise of science, exclude all other positional beliefs that are in opposition to the ToE, is second to none. The study of the ToE must always be approached from a position of acceptance in order for the study to be considered valid. Any approach that questions the validity of the ToE as being truly scientific is met with a blitzkrieg of aspersion, defamation, and calumny that would make Hitler jealous. Using tactics that tarnish the hard work of the honest and sincere proponents of the ToE, Nazi-like behaviours are used by a few of the fringe neo-evolutionists. For them, the words of Hitler, "Tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, and people will start to believe you", is their Motis Operandi. These few irrational evolutionists make the rest of their group look like they all are incapable of independant thought. That is most unfortunate. I have several friends who are evolutionists that I work with on a daily basis. Never has even one of them ever attempted to use the deplorable tactics that I have seen some of these neo-nazi-evolutionists employ. They would be ashamed to count them amoung their ranks. The exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of continuing knowledge. Diversity of thought is paramount to new and wonderful discovery. Fascism may not be totally dead, but it sure smells like a rotting corpse.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B] Presumably this means you're saying the ToE relies on circular argument.How so?MarkNo, I would not make this claim, although it does occur in many debates. Remaining within the context of my entire post, it addresses how the proponents of the ToE who are on the fringe, (and not the mainstream proponents), are never willing to discuss the ToE honestly with anyone who approaches the ToE as a skeptic. These fringe evo's are easily recognized by their tactics of attacking the person rather than addressing the position through the refutation of evidences presented. The ToE is never so cut-n-dried as some continually insist that it is. As I stated earlier, I have several friends who are evolutionists who I work with on a daily basis. They fully know my position as I do theirs. They have never used my opposition to the ToE as an excuse to simply dismiss any opposing view on any particular subject of discussion that we may have. If I ask a question and they know that nothing within the ToE can properly explain away my position, they readily admit it. They do not abandon their position, but neither do they disregard my position as invalid simply because it challenges the ToE. Perhaps that is why we always look forward to new and rewarding discussions. We make every attempt to show each other mutual respect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B]I think that we should all ask Jet to tell us about the research he does for the "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies".What part of "NO" do you not understand? Is it the "N" or the "O"?
I am not surprised that you continue to press me for information from our little, yet growing organization. I have repeatedly denied you any access to this organization via a P.O. Box, Fax Number, Address, or E-mail. I have also stated my reasons to you several times. Our resources are not such that we are willing to deal with the continued harrassment that we received in the past when this information was made available. We have had our E-mail address overwhelmed with spam so we changed it. Our fax and phone lines, limited as they are, which were spammed during off hours to the extent that our message center was inundated with bogus letters and recorded messages, most of which were a single worded letter and an inflamatory recorded message, called in hundreds of times, from the same group of individuals.As I stated to you in the other club, a point which you seem unable to grasp, is that I would not post any information without permission from my superiors, ( which they have already denied me), not to mention that nothing I am involved in at the Research Center is any of your business. As one of my superiors pointed out to me, your continued harrassment on this issue is a very strong indication that you are indeed one member of that group of individuals that bombarded us with spam messages before, which caused us to initiate this policy in the first place. You may continue your fruitless attempts to gain information but until I actually post evidence that has been presented by our Research Center, I feel no need whatsoever to allow you even the slightest amount of exposure to our studies, research, or our organization. You may not like our policy but in the immortal words of Rhet Butler, that great character in the "Gone With The Wind" movie...........................................................""FRANKLY, MY DEAR, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN""Something tells me you still will be unable to grasp the concept that "NO MEANS NO!", so when you get the urge to continually ask for that which has continually been denied you, as it is none of your business, and your relentless desire to access us is undoubtedly so that you and your group can once again begin spamming us, and seeing as how none of our research would be offered in a froum such as this, not at any time, nor for any reason, please refer to the quotes above for clarification on why your requests are continually ignored and denied.

Percy,
I apologize for the post, but I thought schraf had gotten the message in the other club. Obviously I was mistaken about that. I will simply refrain from responding to any further inquiries concerning the Research Center, as the previous post obviously said it all. Again, I apologize for the post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Sorry if this also fals under the category of mind your own business but why do research into creation/evolution if the results won`t be made available?

​

Does the provision of an overview of research conducted, methodology, conclusions reached so far and the like feature on the list of information your employers have put on some sort of need to know list?

​

To be fair if your employers have made verboten any sort of comunication of your work to the outside world I also don`t give a damm I just find the ban on comunication odd.....

---

Actually, they are not my employers. I run a business that has nothing to do with them or their research work. I am an associate apprentice with the Research Center and all of my work is voluntary, although I do receive a per diem. All of my instruction is free under the signed guarantee that I make no attempt to present, provide, or publish any of the findings concerning the studies I am involved in. I would not do so anyway, as it would require me to take credit for another persons life work.It is my hope to be allowed to engage in a study at the Grand Canyon in the future, but my current study involves the probable effects on the environment of a global canopy and a double atmosphere. There are other studies and research being done in this area by other organizations that are far more equipped than we are. However, this study is of great interest to me and if given the chance I would gladly engage in this study with those other organizations. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be a realistic possibility.

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. I can't say I blame them. Believe it or not, there are actual debate groups where evo's are willing to acknowledge scientific work despite the fact that the scientist might be a christian. Most even accept creation science as the true science that it is. It's a shame that not all evo's are as honest and willing to debate without the attitude shown by some of the evo's in here. More's the pity!

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
jet--
stop your creationist conspiracy dance and start giving the hard facts.

​

do you think that we evilutionists are here to murder you? no! we have better things to do. but we are here to debate the facts.

​

as of yet, you have given no facts and nothing to work with. instead, you have resorted to critisizing the evilutionists for not being open-minded. open-minded about what? your conspiracy?

​

and where is the evidence of that evilutionist conspiracy... none yet.

​

so jet, go to animals on the ark, QUESTIONS, and the ultimate question threads, and answer my questions. your yacking is wasting time.

​

[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-09-2002]

---

Your response is exactly the type of non-productive approach that I referred to earlier. Nothing of substance nor any attempt at an honest presentation of a position with facts to support it. You offer personal verbal attacks, coupled with continual ranting concerning non-issues. And you actually expect someone to enter into a discussion of the issues with you? On what basis? Move on to your next target! Homey don't play this game!

I have pondered this question more than I care to admit. In all actuality, I would hope that nothing could ever convince me that the ToE was correct and that the God of the Bible was just another fairy tale from the mind of demented men and women. I would find it difficult to conceptualize that this existance is all that there is and that there is no afterlife. I do not find this difficult to accept because it means no eternal reward but rather I find it difficult to accept because it would mean no eternal judgement. I find it nearly impossible to fathom that some of the most heinous crimes ever conceived and then callously committed would go eternally unpunished. I do not speak of the most obvious crimes or the criminals, Hitler, Stalin, etc.I refer to the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash. If that is the kind of world that you, or anyone else, truly desires to put your faith in then I pity your kind most above all creatures. I would not care to believe in such a world of lawlessness where there is no true consequence of action. That is why I must ultimately reject and totally deny any acceptance of such an inhumane concept as the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is the way I was raised, though I seriously doubt that is the reason I feel this way. In fact, despite my upbringing, I have far too much empathy in my being to ever pay homage to such a barbaric concept as the Godless theory of evolution. There is a reason some people refer to this concept as "EVILUTION"! No thanks, I hold to a belief that offers Hope! I'll Stick To The Word! I fully expect, and rightfully demand, judgement for the wicked! Enough Said!!!

Typical response from a darkened mind.

Typical response from a darkened mind.