As I read counters to evolutionist claims of edivence for evolution, I'm really quite curious what evolutionists would have to present to convince people like Nick or Randman that speciation has occured. To show that one species evolved into another, does the biologist have to explain how each changed in each generation through the thousands of generations? Does the archeologist have to dig up a 100% complete skeleton of each generation along the path? If proof doesn't have to be that extreme, what would it take? Is there anything that, if it happened to be uncovered & presented to the world, would convince the most hardcore young-earth creationist that species can and have evolved into significantly different species? I'm not talking black to white moths. I'm talking a scale like chimp-like primate to human. Obviously, we're in the hypothetical world with this thread. I'm just curious what it would take to change your mind. I'm curious to see if edivence could physically be complete enough to convince some of the people here.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What evidence is required?
- Thread starter tycho
- Start date
Lanakila
Not responsible for the changes here.
- Jun 12, 2002
- 8,454
- 222
- 60
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Your hypothetical question has a few different answers. For example if God did do it through evolution and the evidence actually proved that, I would believe in evolution. I would have a hard time justifying Genesis as most evolutionists do. But, because science is studied by scientists who primarily have a belief that evolution (macro and micro happened) and look at the evidence with that belief in mind, often the interpretation of the very same data is skewed toward that evolutionary belief. You can call it bias, or propaganda if you like, but this is in fact the truth.
I admit I have a bias, or presupposition more correctly. Most evolutionists don't admit this and can't see how that presupposition causes the interpretation of the same evidence to be different than mine.
I admit I have a bias, or presupposition more correctly. Most evolutionists don't admit this and can't see how that presupposition causes the interpretation of the same evidence to be different than mine.
Upvote
0
Of course most scientists look at the evidence with the belief in mind that macro-evolution happened. That's because it is a sound theory. It is different to have a presupposition based on sound theory with good evidence than it is to have a presupposition just because you like to believe that way.
Upvote
0
I think you feel that way because you personally aren't convinced.
I guess this whole debate is pointless: those that aren't convinced on the basis of relating the evidence at the comprehension level of a layman probably won't be convinced apart from taking a concentration of study in the matter at the university level. The science advocates cannot be teachers, and we cannot answer every question.
I do want to remind everyone here though: just the fact that I am not convinced and are not well enough educated about the subject to be convinced - does not put me in the position to decide the scientific basis of the theory of evolution. It would be poor judgement on my part to be publicly and actively making the effort to discredit the science that I only dimly understand, taking advantage of the fact that my audience only dimly understands it as well in order to convince them that the scientists are on the wrong track, and should be ignored.
Upvote
0
I wasn't looking for a debate when I started this thread. I was just looking for some insight in others' belief systems.
Lanakila, by stating this, do you mean to say that unless the theory of evolution expressly gives God credit for the laws of physics to be as they are, allowing life to act as it does, you won't give the theory any weight? If this isn't your point, please set me straight.
Upvote
0
First, you have to agree to use some other term than speciation. If you're using that word to set up creationists to whip the London mosquito on them, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest and you can disregard the rest of my post. But I'm assuming that's not what you're doing, and that you are using the word "speciation" to mean something on the order of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.
In fact, it would probably be best to avoid all of the standard terms like phylogeny, etc., because they are loaded with imagination rather than facts. For example, phylogenic trees (at least with respect to evolution) are what we "imagine" to be the relationships between creatures and their ancestors -- they aren't proof that there are such relationships.
So what would I accept as evidence? You must offer irrefutable evidence in the fossil record, or demonstrate observable evolution (as in dinosaur-to-bird evolution) occurring through natural causes. To elaborate:
1. You can provide the fossil evidence of the gradual evolution of the magnitude of a dinosaur turning into a bird. The only way to do this is to present millions of transitional fossils that show how the features evolved gradually over time. What you can NOT do is show a couple dozen fossils that look like they might have been steps within a transition, because that is not an observation of evolution, it's observation of similar looking things that you can connect only with your imagination. If you can connect them with millions of transitionals, then it's no longer imagination, it's hard evidence.
2. You most prove that you have observed evolution of this type "in the lab." I put "in the lab" in quotes because you can't do it in a test tube with intelligent intervention. Human intervention invalidates the premise of natural causes. The only way to provide hard evidence for evolution by natural causes is to block off a wildlife preserve and observe all the life within it for a few million years until you've recorded the equivalent of the process of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.
Any takers?
Upvote
0
Nick, it is perfectly acceptable to hold evolution to different standards than the scientific community does for matters of your own personal conviction.
That doesn't put you in a position to go mouthing off about it like you actually understand it and have been able to see further than others to reveal the flaws that you have a hunch might be there. You are free to disbelieve in evolution because we don't have the time and patience to demonstrate it using the observational techniques you require, or to explain to you on a third grade level why exactly the techniques we use are just as valid. However, if you take your lack of conviction as evidence that it didn't happen then don't expect anyone to give your evidence any weight... and PLEASE, don't confuse people by claiming to have evidence against evolution when you don't even know what evidence against evolution would look like.
That doesn't put you in a position to go mouthing off about it like you actually understand it and have been able to see further than others to reveal the flaws that you have a hunch might be there. You are free to disbelieve in evolution because we don't have the time and patience to demonstrate it using the observational techniques you require, or to explain to you on a third grade level why exactly the techniques we use are just as valid. However, if you take your lack of conviction as evidence that it didn't happen then don't expect anyone to give your evidence any weight... and PLEASE, don't confuse people by claiming to have evidence against evolution when you don't even know what evidence against evolution would look like.
Upvote
0
Perhaps I understand it better than you do, Jerry, which would explain why you still believe it.
And, by the way, when you can demonstrate that God died and left you in charge, then I'll start to care about when you think I'm in a position to say anything.
As for whether or not you have the evidence I'd require, I didn't think that was the point of this thread. Someone asked what evidence I'd accept, and I responded. Nobody asked for something you personally could deliver.
As for the rest of your statement, I've never claimed to have evidence against evolution, so I have no idea what you're talking about. But if I were looking for some, I'd start with your posts.
Upvote
0
I was hoping, that just maybe, you would stop for a moment to care whether you were actually in such a position.
Ok, I'll buy that
I'm glad you admit you have no evidence against evolution. Now if you will just admit that others do, but thinking about it bugs you & that you have a hard time understanding how something like a transitional fossil can be evidence, then we will really be getting somewhere.
Upvote
0
haha, this is great, creationists aren't really interested in the evidence. You could have 1,000,000 years worth of videotapes of every single organism involved in a major macroevolutionary change from one taxa to another, with documentation of every single base change/insertion/deletion and every single mating pair, and a creationist would dismiss it. Evidence is only interesting to them if it fits with creation
Upvote
0
There are large numbers of observed speciation events.
Got bugs on the brains, hmm?
That wouldn't be the right word, now would it?
Quick Nick, in straight Linnean taxonomy, what is the first level Birds and Dinosaurs divurge? Species? Genus? Family? Class? Order? Phylum? Kingdom?
Tick-tock.
Once you answer that, I suppose you'd have a good word. Something of a useless word. "Classation" or "Orderation" events would be a darn good disproof of evolution, if that happened on any timescale shorter than millions.
Upvote
0
You misunderstand me. I just don't care if YOU think I'm in such a position.
Others have evidence against evolution? Cool. Show me and I'll admit it.
Upvote
0
So are you now admitting that BSC speciation and evolution from bacteria to kangaroo are not the same thing?
Upvote
0
Speciation: I used that word because I didn't want this discussion to involve the origin of life. But yes, Nick, I do want to stay away from "microevolution" & discuss large-scale changes.
My main point of starting this thread was to see if it was physically possible to convince the more frequently posting creationists here that evolution was true. From what I've seen so far, the answer is 'no'. Lanakila seemd to indicate that God would have to be acknowledged in the process, which as we've discussed before is not in the realm of science &, therefore, will not happen. Nick requires 2 points. 1) millions of fossils showing each step across a large change. This is one is unlikely since there just aren't that many complete fossils. 2) lab. replication. This is simply not feasible. To be able to observe 1 million generations of any species, even one that reproduces 10 times daily, would take over 200 years. Needless to say, this just isn't going to happen in our lives.
My conclusion: unless Lanakila & Nick change their requirements of proof, it is not physically possible, regardless of how bulletproof the evolutionist argument becomes, to convince them of it.
My main point of starting this thread was to see if it was physically possible to convince the more frequently posting creationists here that evolution was true. From what I've seen so far, the answer is 'no'. Lanakila seemd to indicate that God would have to be acknowledged in the process, which as we've discussed before is not in the realm of science &, therefore, will not happen. Nick requires 2 points. 1) millions of fossils showing each step across a large change. This is one is unlikely since there just aren't that many complete fossils. 2) lab. replication. This is simply not feasible. To be able to observe 1 million generations of any species, even one that reproduces 10 times daily, would take over 200 years. Needless to say, this just isn't going to happen in our lives.
My conclusion: unless Lanakila & Nick change their requirements of proof, it is not physically possible, regardless of how bulletproof the evolutionist argument becomes, to convince them of it.
Upvote
0
Guess what: this preserve does already exist. In fact, it has existed for a few million years. It is called Australia. Only we could not directly watch the evolution of marsupials (but not mammals), we again have to rely on indirect evidence...
Upvote
0
If that is the kind of proof you expect, then a lot of science suddenly becomes invalid because of "lack of proof".
What you are saying is something like a justice system that would require a crystal-clear videotape of a murder (with audio, and preferably multiple tapes from different angles), otherwise the suspect would have to be acquitted because there's no proof he did it.
-Chris
What you are saying is something like a justice system that would require a crystal-clear videotape of a murder (with audio, and preferably multiple tapes from different angles), otherwise the suspect would have to be acquitted because there's no proof he did it.
-Chris
Upvote
0
Nope. I'm simply stating your terminology is horrid.
Speciation is the appearance of a new species from a pre-existing one. Not the appearance of a new genus, or order, or family, or class, or phylum, or kingdom.
Although, of course, the roots of any of those Linnean branches rest in a speciation event. The first vetebrate was barely distinquishable from the invertebrate it speciated from. Billions of years later, there's no confusing the two.
I'd introduce you to cladistics, but given your difficulties with simple ideas...
Upvote
0
TScott
Curmudgeon
We know that evolution exists, we can emulate evolution and cause organisms to evolve in the laboratory. Consider bean and other legume genetics. Been doing it for decades.
In a broad sense, I see no major conflict between Genesis and evolution. They can be compatable if one realizes that the prospective audience for Genesis were people that lived about 2800 years ago. They wouldn't have understood genetics, mass extinctions or even the concept of a billion years or a billion anything. IMO Genesis and much of the rest of the Pentateuch were re-writes of existing Babylonian and Sumerian myths and that their purpose was to demonstrate human relationships with the God of Abraham.
The theory of evolution is no more threat to religion than Genesis is a threat to science. It is only the narrow mindendness and chauvinism of people that threatens either.
In a broad sense, I see no major conflict between Genesis and evolution. They can be compatable if one realizes that the prospective audience for Genesis were people that lived about 2800 years ago. They wouldn't have understood genetics, mass extinctions or even the concept of a billion years or a billion anything. IMO Genesis and much of the rest of the Pentateuch were re-writes of existing Babylonian and Sumerian myths and that their purpose was to demonstrate human relationships with the God of Abraham.
The theory of evolution is no more threat to religion than Genesis is a threat to science. It is only the narrow mindendness and chauvinism of people that threatens either.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
