For Creationists, what would be the threshhold to change your mind?

Question

For Creationists, what would it take to convince you? I mean, we have warehouses of fossils showing a steady progression. There are a few gaps, but we would expect that considering how truly rare a fossil is. Our understanding of evolution allowed us to make tremendous advancements in biology, medicine and to create geology. Predictions and assumptions based on evolution were later confirmed by DNA. We have established the age of the universe to be considerably older than 5000 years old.

Have you defined your logical system to be unfalsifiable (a big no-no in logic)? What discovery would convince you? Would the discovery of the "missing link"? Judging by your writings, you seemed obsessed with it. Even though we don't actually expect one to ever be found. (Although we prefer the term "transitional fossils" and some are gradually showing up.)

What would convince you? What if god himself came down to tell you? Or would you think it was trick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

wrote:
"if science observed an actual mutation that increased information rather than rearranging or deleting - then i would consider evolution"

OK, finally an intelligent point. Yes, most mutation is harmful. But it only takes one good one, and that gets passed on. And that happens rarely, over millions of years over large areas of the eart. It cannot be observed in a petri dish over a week. It's like saying that no one has written a symphony because you've never seen anyone do it. Picking people at random and watching them, you never would. See some links below that might help you though.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

wrote:
"I just want to know.....If we came from monkeys....WHY are there STILL monkeys?????"

This is a HUGE misunderstanding of evolution. (This is why I complain about ignorance in creationists. I've read the bible, have you read Darwim?"

Evolution does not say that we came from monkeys!!! We both came from a common ancestor. Then, the tree split. Can you imagine that there were to groups of these animals and each had different selective pressures and therefore developped differently? And even if there was a 3rd group that had no pressures and therefore never changed?

This tired and unimformed argument is worn out. Can't creationists come up with a good argument? They keep saying half truths, misquotes and distortions.

wrote:
"Warehouses of fossils "showing steady progression"?"

OK, a little hyperbolic, but not too much.

The London Natural History Museum has William Smith's stunning collection. His oragniziation of trilobite fossils let to the dating of geologic layers that created modern geology.

(If all you guys don't believe in evolution, why do you accept sciences built off of it?)

The Smithsonian has a nice collection, as does the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/transitional_fossils.htm
http://darwinblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/transitional-species-in-insect_24.html

someone wrote:
"Nothing would convince me, because if evolution is true life has no meaning and therefore God does not exist"

If nothing would convince you, then your mind is closed. Also, if evolution is true, then that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, just that the literal interpretation of Genesis isn't true. Also, if there is no god, there is still meaning in life, just what you give it. My life has tremendous meaning and depth. I think it has more meaning than before my conversion. Now I have to infuse my life with my own meaning instead of having it passively handed down from above.

someone wrote:
"If a car in a junk yard suddenly appears fully operational and better than any existing model in every way without any intellegence involved then I would consider evolution to be a valid theory."

What? You can't tell the difference between inanimate objects and living beings? OK, done talking to you. (Anne shakes her head in bewildered disgust and turns away.)

Answer 1

if science observed an actual mutation that increased information rather than rearranging or deleting - then i would consider evolution
these mutations that science postulates occured is the basis for macro evolution, and in science observation and experiment must be done. there has been no observation so i remain a skeptic

Answer 2

Evolution is a faith that takes more faith to believe than the story of a Creator.

If a car in a junk yard suddenly appears fully operational and better than any existing model in every way without any intellegence involved then I would consider evolution to be a valid theory. Or if a watch would come together by itself and keep time perfectly then I would believe.

The fossil record is full of hypothesis and guess work that is not been allowed to be challenged by all the scientific community. The war against creationist must end in the scientific community and allow the hypothesis of all to be brought forward and taught rather than the evolutionary indoctrination that currently goes on in our public schools today.

Teaching creationism would not lead to a state church or the favoring of a certain sect or denomination within Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other world religion like Hiduism, which is what the estabishment clause in the US Constitution is refering to. It would not hinder or help any religion in any way. Throwing scientist and school teachers out that do not believe what they are forced to teach is no way to have a real debate on this topic of origens. Teach both and let the individual decide since both sides of this arguement agree we will never by pure scientific data based on factual eye witness evidence prove conclusively either theory.

Creation Quarterly :

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

is a peer reviewed scientific magazine that has scientific reasoning that severely challenges evolution of what ever hypothesis, since all evolutionist do not agree either.

The complexity of the DNA denies the fact no one designed it. It is full of evidence that someone designed and created a pattern that fits into all creation and keeps order between the species. It also is a plan that allows for change on a minute level for the preservation of a species. All pointing to a designer when I look at what evolutionist write about these things. It is all in how one approaches the data. Both sides begin with preconcieved and subjective theories which they interprete according to thier faith in those theories so let us hear from all sides of this debate freely.

Answer 3

Nothing would convince me, because if evolution is true life has no meaning and therefore God does not exist, and since God is the only one who could probably convince me, it will never happen, scientists have "found" the missing links before but they have been disproven time and time again, yet they continue to use them as proof and put them in textbooks to tech their theory, that to me is not a sign of a true theory, it's a wild and crazy theory thought up by someone who didn't want to believe in God and was looking for ways to do it, I hope you find the truth soon, watch the videos by Kent Hovan, a christian creationist who blows the evolution theory out of the water, do a search on it and get the videos from the library or something, they are very logical, remember, if evolution is true, life has no meaning and we are wasting our time arguing on here, you might as well have fun in life because when you die, there's nothing else, kinda pointless, and evolutionists says that everything came from nothing?? I think that is more illogical than saying that God exists, but man as a whole will not accept that there is a God who rules the world. Now, idk where these so-called fossils showing steady progression are located at but if this is so why the heck aren't they being shown to the general public, if evolution is so true, why not show us all this proof you have, it makes me wonder if you really have any "proof" well, you think about that, have a good day

Answer 4

As a Christian and a creationist, I don't need my mind changed. Yes, I belive that God created the world. But I also believe that He created it whatever way He saw fit. The "7 days" may not be 7 literal days, and that's ok with me. Honestly, I don't understand why people make such a big deal about it. In the long run, does it really matter if God created the world in 7 24hr days or if He created the world through evolution?

P.S. I do find some very interesting simularities between the Big Bang and the Creation Story

Answer 5

There isn't a threshold by which any creationist can or will change their mind because:

a. Creation is based on pure faith and absolutely NO genuine evidence, thus evidence is completely irrelevant, and

b. Questioning such a major, basic tenant of their faith could possibly put them at risk for questioning others basic tenants, and thus begin the toppling of the house of cards that religion is.

Since most deeply religious people absolutely NEED their religion, (an addiction as tough to break as any drug), they cannot bear to put it under any sort of scrutiny that could cause them to lose their faith.

C. Most are so afraid of losing their faith that they cannot accept that some stories may be fact, and others fiction and that separating the true history from the fiction is unimportant, because the moral values taught by such stories are valuable as is. (most biblical scholars recognize that at least part of the bible is parable and does not have any basis in historical accuracy, but rather it exists to teach a lesson).

D. They look to the gaps in evolution to disprove the theory, rather than to the larger group of actual facts to prove it. Funny how they demand unequivocal proof of a scientific theory before declaring it accurate, but accept Creationism on absolutely NO proof..


Thus it is not possible for them to question.

Answer 6

Just so you creationists know, there have been experiments with evolution. Fruit flies (drosophilia) have lots of children and have short lifespans, making them easy to work with. When placed in a lab and observed, changes in their DNA have been noted. Since evolution is based on changes in DNA, these natural mutations would indicate evolution.

As for those who doubt the existance of fossils with steady progression, they are in laboratories and museums. If you've been to a natural history museum, you've seen some before.

Answer 7

The only way I would believe evolution over creation by God, is if God told me in an audible voice that He allowed the world to evolve by creating the initial materials and the energy .

Answer 8

There are so many things to be said, but just let me touch this one aspect.....

Transitional fossils are a weak attempt to change the terms of proof. Scientists, for many years were "obsessed" with finding the "missing link". So much so, that several times, they fabricated the missing link.

After many years of research, and many failures to find such a missing link, they came up with a new idea.........

Let's stop looking for a missing link because we never have found one. Instead let's find another way to discredit the bible, and do it on our own terms. Let's look for what we will label transitional fossils, and thereby prove our point.

This my friend is a joke. The only evolution darwin himswlf studied and taught, was evolution within a species. It is impossible for one species to evolve into another species. This is where the "missing link" comes into play.
There is no fossil evidence of a crossover from species to species.The bible has always been and will always be accurate, no matter what "discoveries" science comes up with. The bible says that all creatures were made after their kind, and until PROVEN otherwise, that is what I wiil believe. If God himself told me otherwise, I would believe, but He won't because he doesn't contradict His own Word. Read it for yourself...

Gen 1:24-27

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
KJV

Answer 9

Warehouses of fossils "showing steady progression"? I think either some one lied to you, or you lied to us. Just exactly where are all the fossils 'showing steady progression'? If you can just make good your first statement, then I will look a little further into your claims. Show me the fossils.

Answer 10

There was a study conducted taking existence of material to its lowest possible denominator. The next step would be creation. Guess what? They ran out of money. Does science not want to investigate creation? BTW I think they both live together.