Would you change your opinion

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

OK.

Let's have a little poll.

We know that we have theistic evolutionists and creationists here.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

Would you shift your position?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am currrently an evolutionist and I would change my mind regarding evolutionary theory if scientific research falsified it.

Evolution, like any scientific theory, must withstand critical analysis and be supported by the data. So far that is the case. In fact, probably more so than any other scientific theory. However, if further research disproved evolution and offered a superior theory (in light of data) then I would indeed change my mind.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Sure I would change my mind - I would do so happily.

 

[Ark Guy]

What if they found the ark on Mt Ararat?

What would your excuse then be?

 

[Bushido216]

Once again our local gnat has missed the purpose of the poll.

 

[marc]

OK.

Let's have a little poll.

We know that we have theistic evolutionists and creationists here.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

Would you shift your position?

You mean like if they found king david's bracelet in a t-rex stomach.

I think there is good evidence on both sides now, that is what makes the debate so heated, but if something absolute came up. well, absolutely.

good question

 

[Bushido216]

marc,

a.) The debate is so heated not because of the data on each side, because only an old earth has any data, but because creationists are clinging to straws.
b.) You took Gould out of context most likely. He has always made a clear distinction between Darwinism and modern evolution.

 

[Jon]

because only an old earth has any data, but because creationists are clinging to straws.

I disagree, young earth does have data just most creationists don’t know it or over simplify it.


Many people see or hear a good sermon then to go somewhere like here and think there a genius and start debating. That’s what causes heated debates- people coming and debating something they don’t fully understand.



I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I would actually say it a good thing because people learn that you can just walk up to someone and say ‘you wrong’ when they don’t understand what their talking about.

 

[av2k]

no i would not change my mind

 

[lucaspa]

What if they found the ark on Mt Ararat?

What would your excuse then be?

LOL! Let me guess. You voted you were a creationist and would not change your mind. That "excuse" gave you away.

What you are trying to do is set up a particular piece of evidence as the falsifying evidence. The answer is that a wooden ship (you can't show it was the Ark) on Mt. Ararat does not falsify evolution. There are several hypotheses for how that got there that does not challenge an old earth, geology, or evolution.

I was thinking more on the lines of finding mammalian fossils in the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian. I am also thinking of finding a trait in a plant or animal that is there exclusively for the benefit of another species.

 

[East Anglican]

OK.

Let's have a little poll.

We know that we have theistic evolutionists and creationists here.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

Would you shift your position?

Both sides use "fill in the gap theology" and valid science to back up thier belief. I'm in the middle at the moment.

 

[lucaspa]

Both sides use "fill in the gap theology" and valid science to back up thier belief. I'm in the middle at the moment.

I have yet to see "valid science" in creationism. However, I would like you to explain that "fill in the gap theology", please. What do you mean by it and exactly how does each side use it?

 

[Micaiah]

If someone came up with 'evidence' that suggested Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, or Jesus didn't die on Calvary, and physically rise the third day, would you lose your Christian faith?

 

[lucaspa]

If someone came up with 'evidence' that suggested Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, or Jesus didn't die on Calvary, and physically rise the third day, would you lose your Christian faith?

The second one, yes. Christianity depends on the Resurrection. Falsify that and Christianity is history. Altho Spong is trying to find a way to avoid this falsification. Maybe you should look more kindly upon Spong!

Now, theism is still valid. But the version of theism that is Christianity is gone.

The virgin birth? No. Many of the Christologies in the early Church were "adoptionist". That is, Jesus was not the literal, biological son of God but was instead the adopted son of God.

 

[Micaiah]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

 

[Larry]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

I would say that the resurrection was a miracle. I don't think miracles can be falsified.

 

[East Anglican]

If someone came up with 'evidence' that suggested Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, or Jesus didn't die on Calvary, and physically rise the third day, would you lose your Christian faith?

That won't happen. You can't prove that some thing true is a lie.

 

[East Anglican]

I have yet to see "valid science" in creationism. However, I would like you to explain that "fill in the gap theology", please. What do you mean by it and exactly how does each side use it?

An example is that Genesis says that the sun and moon were created after light was created. Creationists who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis would use fill in the gap theology like "God was the source of that light" They would then claim that inherited diaseases are due to God tweaking people genetic make up to punish children for their ancestors sins and use valid science on genetics to back it up.

Evolutionists also change the meaning of chunks of the bible into fill in the gap theology to support their belief.

 

[Micaiah]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

Any other responses?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Can you explain a scenario that would falsify the resurrection.

Currently, without time travel I do not think there is a way to either scientifically falsify the resurrection or scientifically prove it happened. Despite what ArkGuy might say there is no current way to scientifically deny the resurrection, some may personally doubt it, but they would be going against the nicean creed and thus not be able to post in this Christian only forum.