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

To be fair Peter the question should also be turned on its head....What evidence would convince us non-creationists that TC,JP,KP et al have it right......A fossil of an allosaur eating a homo sapien a` la Onyate man?The discovery of the remains of a massive 4,000 year old boat bigger than modern cruise liners?All extant copies of Origin of the species spontaneously combusting and a loud voice proclaiming from the heavens "I MADE IT ALL!!!"?Seems to me the criticism coming here to preach instead of debate is a double edged sword unless we define evidence that would convince us that their arguments are correct.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Do you know any scientist who, when faced with sufficiently credible evidence, will NOT change their mind ?

---

Nope....In post 2 I was just pre-empting the expected creationist response of *well your argument applies to you as well*. Since the point has now been raised and answered anyone of the creationist persuasion who posts here need not mention it again......Oh BTW are you familiar with Onyate man?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
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.

---

Proof doesn`t exsist outside maths....Evidence for Macro evolution can be found here: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htmComents?

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.....

Of course if they do commit any of those awfull crimes and then accept Jesus etc they get to go to heaven, meanwhile any hypothetical sinless atheist has to kick his heels in hell for eternity.....Now thats what I call the sort of divine judgement that can only come from perfect wisdom.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
That's OK, we can recant on our deathbeds, just to be on the safe
side

---

Not me I have more class than Pascal....

quote:

---

Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
1)The only reason there is suffering in this world is because humans (Adam and Eve) were created with the POSSIBILITY of suffering by god, which they ACTUALIZED when they ate the forbidden fruit. When they chose to sin, the consequences were suffering. Suffering isn't punishment, it is a natural consequence of the choice to sin.

​

2)a)The reason people often equate evolution with atheism is because if life came about by chance, then there was no need for an outside creator to intervene,

​

b)...and if there is no outside creator, then there are no morals, no universal truths, no right and wrong. Everybody's politically correct, everybody's views are just as good as somebody else's.

​

c)Most evolutionists have no intention of breeding such a lawless school of thought, but it often inadvertently does.

---

1)Excuse me but given that eating the fruit gave them "the knowledge of good and evil" how without any prior knowledge of good and evil could they make a free will informed choice to sin or not????If they only had the requisite knowldge to asses their actions as sinfull after the fact it seems odd that a omnibenevolent God would punish them....Don`t you think?2)a)If you inserted abiogenesis instead of evolution you would have a sentence that made sense as it is you don`t....b)Assumes that there are universal morals, that said putative universal morals can only come from a supernatural source, that the internal consistency of a set of moral guidelines can only be examined with reference to theology and that things cannot be right or wrong in a secular fashion but only in the context of religious doctrine...Thats quite a bunch of assertions, anytime you feel like giving some sort of supporting argument feel free, knock yerself out kid...c)Hmmm lets see about four times as many people per thousand capita regularly attend chuch in thew US as in the UK...From this we postulate that people in the US are 4 times as religious (as measured on the regular chuch attendance scale) as the populace of the UK....Riddle me this which of these societies has the highest rate of murder?I`ll give you a hint it ends with S...Given that one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not murder and that the US is 4 times as religious as the UK we would expect to see a rate of about a quarter that of the UK.... We don`t therefore we reject the hypothesis that morality is linked to religious faith....Oh and look into secular humanism sometime if you really think that Atheism is necessarily amoral...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-31-2002]