What Would It Take?

[Zadok001]

This question applies to every single person on this forum:

"What evidence would be required for you to change your views regarding the history of the universe?"

To clarify. The answer to this question cannot be "Proof of evolution" or "Proof of YECism." That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "What would it take for you to accept the opposite viewpoint of your own?" I'm asking, simply, what evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to rethink your current beliefs about the universe. What would make a YECist abandon the flood model? What would make an evolutionist deny common descent?

Answers should likely be examples of empirical evidence. "Proof" is not a good answer. "Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian" is a good answer, and is indeed my own answer. I have no idea what answers a YECist might give, so I cannot reasonably give an example for them.

Why is it important to answer this question? Because it shows your beliefs to be, at least at some level, falsifiable. If you can answer this question, then some state of affairs can empirically exist which would cause you to reconsider your position. If you cannot answer this question, then your belief is not based on evidence, but rather purely on belief. Needless to say, such a condition ought not be advertised in a "Science" forum.

Additionally, by answering this question, we can give some purpose to discussions here. Does someone have a fossil bunny from the pre-Cambrian? Congrats, you've pushed me away from the ToE. Likewise, if YECs can give an example of empirical evidence that would convince them YECism is in error, and that evidence can be produced...

My response: Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

In addition to fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian, if scientists mapped an organism's genome and the resulting sequence was decidedly different than what we would expect (i.e. some mammal's genetic sequence being closer to, say, a shark or mollusk than to the mammals generally assumed to be closely related to it), I would have little choice but to seriously question common descent.

Another thing that would throw a wrench in the works would be an example of some organism having a feature that is exclusively of use/value to another type of organism.

 

[Aradia]

Any evidence I see makes me rethink my current beliefs. Any difference of opinion makes me rethink my current beliefs. To *change* my beliefs, however, requires evidence that leads to a single logical conclusion that differs from my beliefs.

Wait, no... can I change my answer? I'll go with fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian, too. =D

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Relatively modern hominid fossils (heck, modern anything) in the Mesozoic, Paleozoic or Precambrian eras would do it.

 

[notto]

A dog giving birth to a cat.
(This would certainly cause me to rethink the validity of evolution - it would falsify it)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Maybe the discovery of some half-ape/half-dolphin fossils or some such thing. At the very least, that would make me stop and think about the validity of current lines of decent.

 

[seebs]

Let's see.

1. Fossils in clearly "wrong" strata.
2. Mysterious fossilized things that don't inexplicably disintegrate just before the guy with the camera gets there.
3. Creatures which don't use the same basic amino acid layout that every other life form does.

Those would be a starting point.

 

[judy]

All of the above are good. For me to stop thinking evolution was a valid explanation of how we got here, I think I'd need archeologists from all over the world to start finding discrepencies in the fossil record. Not just one misplaced bunny fossil.

 

[SplitRock]

Some different examples that would make me seriously question evolutionary theory:

1. Fossils of mammals with feather imprints.

2. Early Cenozoic whale-like fossils with baleen instead of teeth (since baleen is an "advanced" feature of whales).

3. A gene from a human which has a sequence more similar to that of a bunny (since we are all fond of bunnies) than to that of a chimpanzee.

4. Pollen from flowering plants in Pre-cambrian or Cambrian formations (they should sort lower down during the Flood).

 

[MartinM]

The message God was 'ere encoded in the human genome?

 

[Zadok001]

Would 'God Was Here' work too, Martin? Or does he have to leave the "H" off to be convincing? (That hints at a deeper issue, which is that with as many numbers as can be pulled out of an entire genome, one can probably find a way to 'decode' just about anything one wanted to. I bet I could find "God is a kitty cat" if I wanted to. For reference, see "The Bible Code.")

Any YECists?

 

[MartinM]

Actually, the errors in the Bible Codes (some of them, anyway) are rather more subtle than it seems at first glance. But, point taken.

 

[WinAce]

Whales with gills. Bats with feathers. A minotaur. Lifeforms with mix-and-match components would do it.

Inconsistent and contradictory phylogenies produced from analyzing different features would also work.

 

[Zadok001]

I was really hoping to get some YECist responses, here. Jase? FoC? There must be some kind of evidence that would make you consider changing your beliefs?

 

[gentu]

I can't think of anything that would indicate the universe is very young, on the order of a few thousand years, but if someone could show me fossils that have a huge number of aquatic & land species from different eras mixed together, and explained it with a rational global flood model with empirical support, I would be convinced.

 

[SBfaithful]

I know you don't want an answer based on belief. Sorry, I'm YEC and nothing, I mean nothing, would ever make me doubt God's word.

By the way, Theomatics is a joke. Why would God hide messages in the Bible.

 

[gentu]

A lot of Christians do not have a problem reconciling science with the Bible, SB.

 

[troodon]

It would take either God directly telling me that young earth creationism is true or the discovery of something totally absurd in the fossil record (birds in the Cambrian, elephants in the Permian, that sort of thing). However, the latter would only destroy my agreement with evolution as we know it; it would not be replaced with young earth creationism.

 

[SBfaithful]

Today at 02:46 AM gentu said this in Post #17

A lot of Christians do not have a problem reconciling science with the Bible, SB.

I agree, where did you get the idea I thought there was a problem. I was just stating that there is no evidence that evolutionists or other scientists could give me that would me think that the Bible was not true.

 

[Zadok001]

SBfaithful:

Then your answer seems to be a non-sequitor. One can believe the Bible is true and be a YEC, or one can believe the Bible is true and not be a YEC. Therefore, it is possible for a YEC to change perspectives and retain the belief that the Bible is true.

Hence, I ask again: What evidence could be presented to you that would convince you that your current view of world history is inaccurate? ("nothing... would ever make me doubt God's word" is not an answer, since changing perspective on the history of the universe is apparently not related to your belief regarding the veracity of the Bible.)