What's enough evidence?

Nightson · Aug 20, 2005

Creationists, what would you consider enough evidence for you to accept evolution? Basically, tell us what you think would convince you. What one or multiple pieces of evidence it would take?

MSBS · Aug 20, 2005

For most of them nothing. They deny science based on religion, and no evidence would ever be enough.

michabo · Aug 20, 2005

It's a matter of faith, so evidence doesn't enter into it.

Nightson · Aug 20, 2005

michabo said:
It's a matter of faith, so evidence doesn't enter into it.

For some it's a matter of faith, but many are just taught that evolution is false and accept it because they haven't looked into it themselves. I was taught evolution was false and believed it for many years, even after I deconverted I still thought evolution was horribly flawed atheistic science, until I looked into it for myself. So I'm really hoping to get a lurker or two to come in with an open mind (not very likely though).

rmwilliamsll · Aug 20, 2005

michabo said:
It's a matter of faith, so evidence doesn't enter into it.

this is a misunderstanding of faith.
It is not opposed to reason but is built on reason and yet exceeds it.
it is not supposed to be irrational but extrarational.
So evidence is important and necessary except it is not sufficient.

....

Grengor · Aug 20, 2005

Nightson said:
So I'm really hoping to get a lurker or two to come in with an open mind (not very likely though).

http://www.christianforums.com/t2000825-evolution-question.html
It always make me happy when a truly open-minded person comes in here, just to seek a greater understanding than their current one, and not in the hopes that they'll "destroy evolution" like so many newbies think they could do on a place like CF.

SackLunch · Aug 20, 2005

Nightson said:
Creationists, what would you consider enough evidence for you to accept evolution? Basically, tell us what you think would convince you. What one or multiple pieces of evidence it would take?

This is a hypothetical that will never come about. God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution. This is why evolution will never be "proven" and will always remain mere theory.

funyun · Aug 20, 2005

SackLunch said:
This is a hypothetical that will never come about.

Which makes the fact that it's called a hypothetical question all the more applicable to the question itself.

Nightson · Aug 20, 2005

SackLunch said:
This is a hypothetical that will never come about. God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution. This is why evolution will never be "proven" and will always remain mere theory.

You didn't answer the question. If no evidence will ever convince you, what does that mean to you?

nvxplorer · Aug 20, 2005

SackLunch said:
God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution.

Incorrect. The authors of Genesis tell us this, not God. God tells us through his creation that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. You have strange priorities. You claim to have knowledge of God, but all you have is the myth of men.

MatthewM · Aug 20, 2005

For me its the lack of transitional fossils which makes me think that macroevolution didn't happen and also it just seems unthinkable that every thing thats alive came from primordial soup or a common ancestor. I also think that things such as the big bang, origin of life and the way the universe was formed as explained in many school text books are unbelievable, however many people don't put origins into the same catergory of evolution. There are several other reasons e.g. the complexity of life etc and many more reasons that are listed on creation websites.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Aug 20, 2005

SackLunch said:
This is a hypothetical that will never come about. God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution. This is why evolution will never be "proven" and will always remain mere theory.

Yet another shining example of a person that has no business posting in a discussion and debate forum. If nothing can ever sway your opinion then you arent here to discuss nor are you here to debate. You are simply here to evangelize and spread your particular brand of propaganda.

michabo · Aug 20, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
this is a misunderstanding of faith.
It is not opposed to reason but is built on reason and yet exceeds it.
it is not supposed to be irrational but extrarational.
So evidence is important and necessary except it is not sufficient.

Words, words, but no meaning.

To accept creationism, you must be willfully ignorant or deny evidence, so of course no amount of evidence will ever be enough as it is simply not a factor.

Nightson · Aug 20, 2005

MatthewM said:
For me its the lack of transitional fossils which makes me think that macroevolution didn't happen

Hehe, there really isn't a lack. I'd recommend readin through these links, hopefully they can convince you.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

MatthewM said:
and also it just seems unthinkable that every thing that alive came from primordial soup or a common ancestor.

It may seem strange, but life is very strange indeed.

MatthewM said:
I also think that things such as the big bang, origin of life and the way the universe was formed as explained in many school text books are unbelievable,

hehe, well highschool textbooks don't always provide the best information on the subject. Could you be a bit more specific about what objections you have to them?

MatthewM said:
however many people don't put origins into the same catergory of evolution

Indeed, origin of the universe, origin of life, and origin of species are all different theories with different evidence.

MatthewM said:
. There are several other reasons e.g. the complexity of life etc and many more reasons that are listed on creation websites.

MatthewM · Aug 20, 2005

Nightson said:
Hehe, there really isn't a lack. I'd recommend readin through these links, hopefully they can convince you.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm
QUOTE]

Some of the transitional fossils mentioned on that site have been refuted here-

Argument: The fossil record supports evolution- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp

The links are missing- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp

Those fossils are a problem-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.
"On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are indeed non-existent."

Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.,
"Teilhardism and the New Religion". Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., p. 8

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.

The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
Prof N. Heribert Nilsson,
Botanist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.
The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
N. Heiribert-Nilsson,
Professor, Lund University, Sweden. Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species)

michabo · Aug 20, 2005

MatthewM said:
Some of the transitional fossils mentioned on that site have been refuted here

Nonsense. Do you really understand what AiG is saying? They are a classic example of denying evidence in favour of faith:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

If someone says outright that they will reject anything out of hand if it contradicts their pre-arranged conclusion, how can you possibly trust anything they say?

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.

Have you actually read any of these books? These quote mines are outright lies, grossly distorting their positions. Only someone that was terribly ignorant or outright lying would cite Gould as evidence against evolution.

Nightson · Aug 20, 2005

Don't forget this site MatthewM.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

TrueCreation · Aug 21, 2005

Nightson said:
Creationists, what would you consider enough evidence for you to accept evolution? Basically, tell us what you think would convince you. What one or multiple pieces of evidence it would take?

What do you mean by "Accept"?

-Chris Grose

Nightson · Aug 21, 2005

TrueCreation said:
What do you mean by "Accept"?

-Chris Grose

Accept evolution to be the best explanation based on the evidence for the origin of species, irrelevant to the origin of life or the universe, and not touching on the question of whether God guides evolution or not.

holycaveman · Aug 21, 2005

Quiz for you guys/gals. First of all I emplor you. Study carbon dating. Second of all Take any science book and read the author. Now.... Look at where the author got his info from. Then take that info, find the author, and see where he gets his info from.....etc..

I did a reasearch on this and its endless. Most all thease selfproclaimed scientests don't do much work for themselves, they just read other scientests books which you are also doing. The fact is that you know nothing for yourself, you onlyknow what you read in the school books.

Carbon dating is a THEORY. Look up the definition of a theory. Basically its not PROVEN!

People use the evolution THEORY, because they can't believe a book that hasn't changed in over 2000 years, that has all types of geographical, ecoligical, proof.

Sounds kinda odd doesn't it. Scientists use theory, the bible has proof!!

Actually to be an evolutionists you have to have quite alot of faith!!

What's enough evidence?

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Well-Known Member

reason, evidence

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

avid reader

GrenAce

Well-Known Member

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Senior Contributor

Member

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

reason, evidence

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Member

reason, evidence

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

God Bless Peer Review

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency