What would change your mind?

[Chuck_Darwin]

The title is in reference to the age of the earth and evolution.

I would change my mind if they found a men and dinosuars in they same rock. And I mean real actual fossils. not the ones in texas.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

A big boat on Ararat with dinosaur turds inside.

 

[TheSleepWalker]

Tyranosaur teeth marks on a mammoth bone.
A flower plant fossil in pre-cambian rock.
Observe rapid granite formation.
and so on...

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

I would change my mind if they found a men and dinosuars in they same rock. And I mean real actual fossils. not the ones in texas.

Well, as always, I would question the evidence and the source. After careful examination, if the evidence proves to be true by my standards, then it is correct for the time being as to fit in with my interpretation of what I see.

 

[Meatros]

A big boat on Ararat with dinosaur turds inside.

A bit crude...but accurate.

 

[Bushido216]

God coming down to Earth, pimp slapping me, and then going back up to Heaven.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Wrong terminology.

Pimp Slapped = divine smitage.

 

[Bushido216]

smitage? Heh. Obbi funny.

 

[MaddyO3]

Finding a big bucket with all the water from the flood in it would convince me.

 

[Jet Black]

a tasty pot noodle.

 

[USincognito]

Because the evidence for an old Earth and evolution occuring is so overwhelming I honestly cannot imagine anything short of aliens showing up, telling humanity that the Earth is one big petrie dish and the experiement is over making me change my mind.

Geology, Biology, Genetics, Physics, History and Archaeology as we know it would have to completely crumble from within before another world view could support old Earth/evolution.

 

[VWPETE]

if the second law of thermodynamics was proven wrong.
if somone could explain the compexity of the human eye and how that could have evolved...it couln't.

 

[Jet Black]

what's that about the 2LOD?

 

[Aggie]

Creationists keep saying that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, but it doesn't. If the second law of thermodynamics was broad enough to prevent evolution from happening, it would prevent snowflakes from forming as well.

Here's a link to a more thorough explanation: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1581814#post1581814

Usually when creationists hear that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and that the earth doesn't qualify as one, they try to broaden the second law of thermodynamics to include situations that the this law does not apply to. Once they do that, however, their argument is no longer based on the second law of thermodynamics, but on an inference drawn from a very limited set of observations. The complexity in a non-closed system will sometimes decrease, but as I have shown in my snowflake example, it does not always.

 

[Jet Black]

I guessed that. I have an immense hatred for the 2LOD argument. It is almost, but not quite as bad as Hovind's angular momentum argument, which I hear from time to time. It displays total and utter ignorance of science and is akin to walking round with a huge neon sign stuck out of their head declaring "I am an idiot". Incredulity is one thing, but that level of ignorance is something totally different.

 

[Meatros]

I was thinking more about this question and I realized something; There is just too much evidence in support of evolution.

So, I thought, what would make me disbelieve?

I'd have to say, waking up in a pool of bright pink jello, being completely hairless, and unable to move a muscle. This right after some idiot offered me the red pill...

 

[Chuck_Darwin]

2LOD? What is it?

 

[Meatros]

Edited to change to:Whups, wrong thing...

 

[danaman5]

if the second law of thermodynamics was proven wrong.
if somone could explain the compexity of the human eye and how that could have evolved...it couln't.

Well, there is clearly no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. If there truly was a conflict there, it would also be impossible for snowflakes to form. Luckily, the second law doesn't prevent either of these phenomena, or many of the other things that creationists claim that it prevents. That takes care of your first problem.

As for the second, the eye evolved step by step, starting with the Cambrian explosion, if I recall correctly. Each step of evolution was not useless, it was just less adapted to the environment(s) that humans live in. Our current eye is the result.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

Centaurs, hippogriphs, chimaeras, mermaids or any other such hybrids (evolution can’t make them).

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian (apologies to J B S Haldane).