What would convince you of evolution?

[t_w]

Hi there. This is my first post, and as a strong atheist and firm believer of evolution(although I dislike evolution being used as an object of belief), I have two questions.

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution. Conversely, if some entity which would appear to fit the description of your God came down to earth and created a few animals on the spot, I would be convinced of creationism. So what scientific evidence would convince you that evolution is a fact?

b) If you wish the notion that God created earth to be considered a scientific theory, which i am sure many of you do, how would it be falsified? In order to be a scientific theory of any kind, there must be some imaginable event which would falsify it(prove it wrong). For example, a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would falsify evolution. What event would falsify your hypothesis that God created earth?

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Hi there. This is my first post, and as a strong atheist and firm believer of evolution(although I dislike evolution being used as an object of belief), I have two questions.

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution. Conversely, if some entity which would appear to fit the description of your God came down to earth and created a few animals on the spot, I would be convinced of creationism. So what scientific evidence would convince you that evolution is a fact?

If God came down and said, "darn it tk, I made the Earth in six days and six thousand years," I'd be convinced that evolution was a fact.

For example, a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would falsify evolution.

No it wouldn't; It would falsify what paleontologists have said though. Remember evolutionary biology only states that all plants and animals have a common living ancestor.

 

[t_w]

No it wouldn't; It would falsify what paleontologists have said though. Remember evolutionary biology only states that all plants and animals have a common living ancestor.

Evolution states far more than this. It proposes natural selection, change in allelle frequency and DNA mutations as the causes of an arise in complexity. It proposes a mechanism by which complexity can arise from simplicity, which is much more than your definition above allows for. That all life has a common ancestor is a conclusion drawn from evolution, not the theory itself.
In the pre-cambrian era the only organisms were single celled, or at the best non-vertebraic. Vertebrates didn't evolve at all until the Cambrian, and mammals until the Triassic. So, certainly, if we found a genuine rabbit fossil from the pre-cambrian era the ToE would not be able to account for that fossil, and would thus be falsified. No fossil found so far has falsified evolution, or even been in conflict with it, hence evolutions fact-like status within the scientific community.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Evolution states far more than this.

Evolutionary biology does not.

It proposes natural selection, change in allelle frequency and DNA mutations as the causes of an arise in complexity. It proposes a mechanism by which complexity can arise from simplicity, which is much more than your definition above allows for. That all life has a common ancestor is a conclusion drawn from evolution, not the theory itself.

And I fully agree. I stay away from paleontological debates with Creationists because they always find a way to bend evidence.

The other thing to state is that we find progressions from simple to complex mostly, but even today, that is not always how it works. Evolution has no 'guided' path, unless, you're a theistic evolutionist.

In the pre-cambrian era the only organisms were single celled, or at the best non-vertebraic. Vertebrates didn't evolve at all until the Cambrian, and mammals until the Triassic. So, certainly, if we found a genuine rabbit fossil from the pre-cambrian era the ToE would not be able to account for that fossil, and would thus be falsified. No fossil found so far has falsified evolution, or even been in conflict with it, hence evolutions fact-like status within the scientific community.

No it wouldn't. It would falsify a great deal of claims, but the idea that all plants and animals have a common living ancestor? Not really, what it would tell us is that it did not happen in the route we think that it occurred.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

We have proof of environmentally based gene mutation.
We can show the progression in all species of animal.
Overwhelmingly these point to evolution.
Right now the collection of fossils of the human family tree are scarce. All the discussion of the missing link with very little data.
Fossil finds in Ethiopia have been dated as the oldest human fossils pre-dating the Europian Neaderthal. This suggests that the neaderthal stage never existed in human evolution and was an entirely different species not giving rise to man.
The findings in Africa date back 160,000 yrs and are classified as Homo Sapien Idaltu. Evidence shows that man may only have evolved from the 6 million yr old Ardipithecus hominid in Africa.
Ancient humans were unique in their ritualistic burial practices. flesh is shown to have been removed by tool markings on the bone and certain bones kept and moved such as the skull. Humans didn't die and remain where they fell like other animals, they were taken back to dwellings. We have less human bones, to put together the human evolutionary family tree than any other species.
Ask anyone with half a pea in the pod, they will tell you that the ability to compile conclusive evidence to the evolution of man is merely a formality for what we are shown.
Evolution does not show the non-existence of God, it just shows the bible as foolish! Something that really doesn't shock many of us.
Now..... Is God just cruel and gave us intelligence and clues to evolution. Did he design it so that intelligent people question the word of the Bible? Does he prefer blind faith? Does he prefer passivity to discovery? Did he give us intelligence and then ask that we ignore what we find with it? If this is a little prank God has played on us I'm not laughing. If he created Adam in his form was he a little hunched over and hairy back then?
This all seems like a very elaborate facade just to test faith. In fact if I was God I would probably favor those who would lean towards questioning the Bible to support what they find in their intelligence. If I was God I could not deny them that, intelligence is the one gift that seperates them from other creatures, why then would I mock them for it?
The alternative to all this is primitive mans hypothesis' of God and calling themselves prophets. There are definite truths in the words written by these men because many of the words are written in love, something we all contain. There are also many falses in these words, you are a fool if you cannot identify man's arrogance and greed for power in these words.
I am sorry to say the true burden lies in the discovery of God within yourself, if I was God I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[seekthetruth909]

Hi there. This is my first post, and as a strong atheist and firm believer of evolution(although I dislike evolution being used as an object of belief), I have two questions.

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution. Conversely, if some entity which would appear to fit the description of your God came down to earth and created a few animals on the spot, I would be convinced of creationism. So what scientific evidence would convince you that evolution is a fact?

b) If you wish the notion that God created earth to be considered a scientific theory, which i am sure many of you do, how would it be falsified? In order to be a scientific theory of any kind, there must be some imaginable event which would falsify it(prove it wrong). For example, a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would falsify evolution. What event would falsify your hypothesis that God created earth?

50 years ago most scientists supported evolution but with new discoveries but the tide appears to be turning. In the last 10 years there have been many scientists criticizing evolution. I recently read a good book by a professor of Biochemistry called “Darwin’s Black Box” which attempts to disprove evolution.

Even one of the leading atheists in the UK now believes in a creator. If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now, with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

Antony Flew , after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

"The more I learn about the details of life and the cosmos, the more convinced I am that the scientific evidence is rife with the fingerprints of a supremely intelligent Creator. Even given the existence of such a Being, I am often stunned that it was even possible to find the technical solutions that have been devised to enable life, vision, thought, reproduction, a brain capable of enjoying and producing music, stable stars, planets like earth, and so forth. See, for example, my discussion of alleged design flaws in the Creation."

 

[t_w]

Evolutionary biology does not.

I should have specified; when I say evolution I am referring entirely to the biological variety - the variety that is relevant to such a forum as this as it appears to contradict literal interpretation of genesis.

No it wouldn't. It would falsify a great deal of claims, but the idea that all plants and animals have a common living ancestor? Not really, what it would tell us is that it did not happen in the route we think that it occurred.

At the very least, a rabbit fossil dating to a period in time when, if evolution is correct, it could not possibly have evolved, would deal an incredibly huge blow to evolution. It would probably result in the collapse of evolution in the scientific community. That rabbit would falsify your definition above as it would be an animal that cannot possibly share a common ancestor with other animals. Dawkins makes the same claim I am making in 'River out of Eden'. Evolutions strength lies in that there are countless ways to falsify evolution and yet it has not yet been falsified.

 

[Mocca]

50 years ago most scientists supported evolution but with new discoveries but the tide appears to be turning. In the last 10 years there have been many scientists criticizing evolution. I recently read a good book by a professor of Biochemistry called “Darwin’s Black Box” which attempts to disprove evolution.

Even one of the leading atheists in the UK now believes in a creator. If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now, with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

<sarcasm>Thanks for actually answering the OP. </sarcasm>

 

[Mocca]

Honestly, I'm expecting a lot of "nothing"s and "the scriptural record is 100% fact!1!111elevenfactorial!!"s. Something like AiG's statement of faith.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Even one of the leading atheists in the UK now believes in a creator. If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now, with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

If you really want to investigate how far back the theory of evolution goes, as well as a similar theory to the big bang. This is mind boggling 610 B.C.-546 B.C. there was a Greek philosopher who postulated close to the same theory without "natural selection" that Darwin made famous. His name is Anaximander, only older philosophy books will contain him.
Our original evolutionist coining "natural selection" is Darwin.
You may not be understanding Darwin fully. His theory generalized presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic and undirected descent with modification.
He also went on to state "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
This would show that even in his simplest theory of life he also witnessed intelligent design.
He also continues.....
"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility".
Darwin was a philosopher and his job was to put together a theory free of belief, solely of scientific basis. However, he makes a statement that suggests that he discovered something so intricate and beautiful it pointed him to a creator.

 

[t_w]

50 years ago most scientists supported evolution but with new discoveries but the tide appears to be turning. In the last 10 years there have been many scientists criticizing evolution. I recently read a good book by a professor of Biochemistry called “Darwin’s Black Box” which attempts to disprove evolution.

Even one of the leading atheists in the UK now believes in a creator. If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now, with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

You have posted some irrelevant arguments against evolution. The question in this thread was, 'what evidence would it take to convince you of evolution', and, 'how is creationism falsifiable?'.

Nevertheless, there is content in your post that cannot be ignored. Michael Behe wrote the book you mentioned, and uses the notion of 'irreducible complexity' to prove a designer. Unfortunately for him, and all other I.D. proponents, the notion is unscientific and has been proven false. The bacteria flagellum, his example of irreducible complexity, is in fact reducable, and can operate with several of its parts missing.

There a literally millions of christians who have renounced their faith and become athiests - many of them leading theologians etc. I would never use this as an argument against Christianity as it is an argument from popularity, a logical fallacy. If every single athiest in the world converted to Christianity this would not invalidate athiesm, similarly if everyone rejecte Christianity this would not disprove Christianity.

98% of the scientific community accepts evolution. Would you kindly inform me of these scientific breakthroughs in physics, genetics etc. which disprove evolution? Any links?

Will you answer the questions in the OP? Can you answer them?

 

[caravelair]

50 years ago most scientists supported evolution but with new discoveries but the tide appears to be turning.

most scientists still believe in evolution. in fact, 99.85% of life scientists accept evolution. those who reject it are in the extreme minority, especially outside the US.

If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now,

most christians worldwide DO accept evolution, today and 50 years ago, because in both times the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution.

... with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

new discoveries have provided even stronger evidence for evolution. by the way, evolution does not say there is no creator. can you give me an example of a scientific discovery that is:

a) evidence against evolution
b) evidence for a creator

?

 

[Mocca]

If you really want to investigate how far back the theory of evolution goes, as well as a similar theory to the big bang. This is mind boggling 610 B.C.-546 B.C. there was a Greek philosopher who postulated close to the same theory without "natural selection" that Darwin made famous. His name is Anaximander, only older philosophy books will contain him.
Our original evolutionist coining "natural selection" is Darwin.
You may not be understanding Darwin fully. His theory generalized presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic and undirected descent with modification.
He also went on to state "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
This would show that even in his simplest theory of life he also witnessed intelligent design.
He also continues.....
"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility".
Darwin was a philosopher and his job was to put together a theory free of belief, solely of scientific basis. However, he makes a statement that suggests that he discovered something so intricate and beautiful it pointed him to a creator.

Darwin was actually a naturalist, which in his time period meant one who studied nature, and his job was to find evidence supporting the Bible in nature. However, his findings led him to believe that biodiversity comes from descent with modification.

 

[t_w]

. His theory generalized presumes the development of life from non-life

This simply isn't true. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. The scientific area covering that would be abiogenesis.

He also went on to state "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
This would show that even in his simplest theory of life he also witnessed intelligent design.

Of course it seems absurd. Evolution is one of the most counter-intuitive notions known to man. What is seems is not what it is. Besides, even if Darwin wrote in a recently found auto-biography that evolution was a big lie it would in no way weaken the theory. The quote is taken out of context, in the same passage he went on to explain how evolution could mould an eye.

Darwin was a philosopher

No, Darwin was a scientist.

However, he makes a statement that suggests that he discovered something so intricate and beautiful it pointed him to a creator.

The statement has nothing to do with evolution. If Newton wrote that gravity was a lie, would that invalidate gravity?

 

[t_w]

Could I remind all creationist posters to answer the questions in the OP. I would appreciate it if you attempted to answer these two questions, and refrain from derailing my thread. After 2 pages of replies, not a single one has been relevant to the OP.

 

[Mocca]

1.5 pages.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

This simply isn't true. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. The scientific area covering that would be abiogenesis.


Of course it seems absurd. Evolution is one of the most counter-intuitive notions known to man. What is seems is not what it is. Besides, even if Darwin wrote in a recently found auto-biography that evolution was a big lie it would in no way weaken the theory. The quote is taken out of context, in the same passage he went on to explain how evolution could mould an eye.



No, Darwin was a scientist.



The statement has nothing to do with evolution. If Newton wrote that gravity was a lie, would that invalidate gravity?

Philosophy is defined as logical reasoning, seeing that evolution is free from empirical laws.... Seeing Darwin as a Philosopher is just fine. Now before we get caught up in word games.....

Generalized and presumes are two words that never imply truth, so why would you say it isn't true?

I stated in my post exactly what darwin went on to say, so what is your argument here? He did his job exactly as I stated.

Stop the word foolery, it doesn't make sense to reiterate what I posted.

 

[t_w]

Philosophy is defined as logical reasoning, seeing that evolution is free from empirical laws.... Seeing Darwin as a Philosopher is just fine. Now before we get caught up in word games.....
Generalized and presumes are two words that never imply truth, so why would you say it isn't true?
I stated in my post exactly what darwin went on to say, so what is your argument here? He did his job exactly as I stated.
Stop the word foolery, it doesn't make sense to reiterate what I posted.

Your post was intended to make it out as though Darwin thought the eye was evidence for intelligent design. I see this as either a lack of education(hopefully) or blatant dishonesty. Hence my response to your post.

Now, can we drop this. Will you please attempt to answer the 2 questions in the OP?

 

[Mocca]

Philosophy is defined as logical reasoning, seeing that evolution is free from empirical laws.... Seeing Darwin as a Philosopher is just fine. Now before we get caught up in word games.....

Generalized and presumes are two words that never imply truth, so why would you say it isn't true?

I stated in my post exactly what darwin went on to say, so what is your argument here? He did his job exactly as I stated.

Stop the word foolery, it doesn't make sense to reiterate what I posted.

Evolution is logical reasoning based upon evidence, which is also what science is.

 

[Silent Bob]

50 years ago most scientists supported evolution but with new discoveries but the tide appears to be turning.

Wish I could see those discoveries. Is it moon dust and the 2nd LoT?

In the last 10 years there have been many scientists criticizing evolution.

Actually they are more religious fundamentalists than scientists.

I recently read a good book by a professor of Biochemistry called “Darwin’s Black Box” which attempts to disprove evolution.

Attempts! And fails...

Even one of the leading atheists in the UK now believes in a creator.

Antony Flew is a deist. More on that claim here.

Note this:

Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.

Flew remains a deist but calls his belief a "very modest defection from my previous unbelief" (Carrier 2005).

If Christians did not accept evolution 50 years ago when science was against them, why would they ever accept it now, with new discoveries in physics, biochemistry, and genetics, giving more support to a creator every day.

Many Christians accepted evolution 50 years ago and even more accept it now. Even if a discovery gives support to the existance of God evolution would still rule supreme. God or no God, Christ or Krishna, evolution theory doesn't give a damn.

If this is derailing the thread let me know and I will delete.