What proof would you need?

[Wiccan_Child]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?

For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

So, what would change your mind?

 

[Jazer]

So, what would change your mind?

I stared off a YEC. It took the Kangaroo in Australia and the Tarisar Monkey in the Philippines to show me that Noah's flood could not have been a world wide flood. I have no reason to argue against the skeltons they find that go back before 6,000 years. I could go on and on to talk about all the evidence that shows a 6,000 year old earth is not a valid understanding and that is not what the Bible teaches. Nothing against Biship Ussher. He gives us a wonderful history of the last 6,000 years. He has almost nothing to say about what took place before that point in time when the Bible tells us about Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. Even the theory of evolution helped me to understand that Eden in the Bible was a biodiverse ecology and there are other Edens in other parts of the world. Darwin never really clashed with the Bible as much as people seem to think he did. He mostly clashed with the traditions. No doubt about it, Evolution has give us a new way to understand our Bible and most people go along with that with no problem. Most people just do not see any conflict between science and the Bible. Just a few Atheists try to hang on to their belief that somehow science will back them up when in actually Science is on the side of Creationism. We are just still working on assimilation of the new information and new understanding that is coming our way at this point in time.

 

[whitetiger1]

So, what would change your mind?

nothing

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true?

I don't walk by sight, I walk by faith.

When it comes to evolution, I go through life with my eyes closed.

 

[Davian]

I cannot fathom believing in gods, but I have changed my mind on a number of things, after careful examination of the evidence.

It would depend on the specific claim.

"I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." - Isaac Asimov

 

[CTD]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?

For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

So, what would change your mind?

If I found myself in a backward, self-contradictory, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed universe where evolutionism might possibly be true, I suppose I might consider it. Then again, I might just wake up.

Evolutionism is the largest spampile of lies ever compiled. In fact, nobody could compile it all in one place if they tried. Now for even one lie to become truth, reality would have to depart from the ways of logic and become inconsistent with itself. Since even one is too much why consider millions? I don't have that big a problem with truth in the first place, and even if I did, evolutionism couldn't solve it.

I honestly don't believe it's even possible for an educated individual to have a dream in which evolutionism is true. I don't think the sleeping mind would tolerate the contradictions.

 

[cupid dave]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?

For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

So, what would change your mind?

Christian Thiestic Evolutionist Bible reader see noi direct mention of a process by which God created the present Reality, but they agree with both sides here, that the Bible does state the general pathos of events claimed by science.

What we would need toees an error in Genesis that conflicts directly with Facts.

 

[cupid dave]

I stared off a YEC. It took the Kangaroo in Australia and the Tarisar Monkey in the Philippines to show me that Noah's flood could not have been a world wide flood. I have no reason to argue against the skeltons they find that go back before 6,000 years. I could go on and on to talk about all the evidence that shows a 6,000 year old earth is not a valid understanding and that is not what the Bible teaches. Nothing against Biship Ussher. He gives us a wonderful history of the last 6,000 years. He has almost nothing to say about what took place before that point in time when the Bible tells us about Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. Even the theory of evolution helped me to understand that Eden in the Bible was a biodiverse ecology and there are other Edens in other parts of the world. Darwin never really clashed with the Bible as much as people seem to think he did. He mostly clashed with the traditions. No doubt about it, Evolution has give us a new way to understand our Bible and most people go along with that with no problem. Most people just do not see any conflict between science and the Bible. Just a few Atheists try to hang on to their belief that somehow science will back them up when in actually Science is on the side of Creationism. We are just still working on assimilation of the new information and new understanding that is coming our way at this point in time.

We TEB readers see the "flood" as a wave of human expansion out-of-Africa.
The details of the story are supported by recent science that concludes the three racial stocks today are all related genetically to one man who lived 40,000 years ago, presumably Noah.

 

[AV1611VET]

We TEB readers see the "flood" as a wave of human expansion out-of-Africa.
The details of the story are supported by recent science that concludes the three racial stocks today are all related genetically to one man who lived 40,000 years ago, presumably Noah.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What we would need toees an error in Genesis that conflicts directly with Facts.

What potential errors would qualify?

nothing

What's your current stance, if I may ask?

I don't walk by sight, I walk by faith.

When it comes to evolution, I go through life with my eyes closed.

Jolly good.

All I would need is evidence that evolution is wrong,

What evidence would suffice? A bacterial flagellum? A miniature crucifix in the fundamental structure of human cells?

If I found myself in a backward, self-contradictory, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed universe where evolutionism might possibly be true, I suppose I might consider it. Then again, I might just wake up.

So your objection to evolution (that is, the theory whereby all living creatures are descended from a single common ancestor, and variation among descendents arises from evolution by natural selection) is that it is not only unsubstantiated, but fundamentally impossible? Would you care to elaborate on what part, exactly is impossible?

< staff edit >

Evolutionism is the largest spampile of lies ever compiled. In fact, nobody could compile it all in one place if they tried. Now for even one lie to become truth, reality would have to depart from the ways of logic and become inconsistent with itself. Since even one is too much why consider millions? I don't have that big a problem with truth in the first place, and even if I did, evolutionism couldn't solve it.

I honestly don't believe it's even possible for an educated individual to have a dream in which evolutionism is true. I don't think the sleeping mind would tolerate the contradictions.

Simmer down, kids.

 

[Huram Abi]

Christian Thiestic Evolutionist Bible reader see noi direct mention of a process by which God created the present Reality, but they agree with both sides here, that the Bible does state the general pathos of events claimed by science.

What we would need toees an error in Genesis that conflicts directly with Facts.

No one reads the Fraudian Bible Interpretation, Cupid.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a problematic question in that the evidence is already in. You might as well ask "What evidence would you need to agree that the Moon is made of cheese?". Well, I would need all the evidence we have to somehow disappear. I think Ernst Mayr said it best:

By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.
80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery
​

In order for me to consider creationism we would need to erase all memories of the last 100 years of scientific research. What we would need to see, if creationism is true, is a lack of a nested hierarchy first and foremost. 100 years of fossil finds and 70 years of molecular biology have only cemented the existence of the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy stands as the principle piece of evidence for evolution, and no creationist can explain why we should see this pattern of homology. Afterall, why would an omnipotent and omniscient designer be required to use three middle ear bones for every animal with fur?

 

[whitetiger1]

What's your current stance, if I may ask?

I am a Creationist. Not because someone told me or (as I seen in the thread) indoctrinated me but because God's Holy Word tells me so

 

[Loudmouth]

I am a Creationist. Not because someone told me or (as I seen in the thread) indoctrinated me but because God's Holy Word tells me so

The lack of self awareness among creationists is truly staggering. People do realize that believing what a holy book says as true is the prime example of indoctrination, don't they?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am a Creationist. Not because someone told me or (as I seen in the thread) indoctrinated me but because God's Holy Word tells me so

One could argue that your belief in the Bible (which I assume is what you mean by "God's Holy Word") is, in fact, indoctrination - but that's a discussion for another thread.

So, why is there nothing that could prove evolution to you? What do you make of the preponderance of physical evidence for, and lack of evidence against?

 

[Split Rock]

I don't walk by sight, I walk by faith.

When it comes to evolution, I go through life with my eyes closed.

But you keep your eyes open when you cross the street, don't you? Your "I walk by faith" motto is only for when it is convienent.

 

[Split Rock]

I am a Creationist. Not because someone told me or (as I seen in the thread) indoctrinated me but because God's Holy Word tells me so

What if you're interpreting "God's Holy Word" wrong?

 

[Split Rock]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?

For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

So, what would change your mind?

Creationism makes so little sense and is so self-contradictory, I don't really see how I could ever be convinced it is correct. I guess if I met God and he was schizophrenic, I might believe in creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you keep your eyes open when you cross the street, don't you? Your "I walk by faith" motto is only for when it is convienent.

Too cute.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if you're interpreting "God's Holy Word" wrong?

Then, just like me, he will deal with the Author at the appropriate time.

I don't answer to science for my righteousness, I answer to God.