What would it take for you to change your view on the evolution vs. creationism debate?

Question

What kind of evidence would it take for you to change from believing in creationism to believing in evolution?

or

What kind of evidence would it take for youto change from believing in evolution to believing in creationism?


Just say what the other side of the issue would have to do to prove their point. I'm looking for pieces of evidence that have not been found yet, such as the missing link between humans and other primates or a Precambrian rabbit.

Essentially, I want to know if it would ever be possible for this issue to be solved or whether people are just to stubborn to ever come to a unanimous conclsion.

A lot of you are saying, "I would need proof of the other side's position."

So tell me what specifically would qualify as proof.

no1home2day, you said that Darwin's ideas are wrong because Darwin was unaware of many biological processes. You then go on to say that your argument was based on well-grounded logic. However, you committed the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem, the idea that attacking the creator of an idea somehow means that the idea must be false. Darwin may not have known about other things, but other people who do know about such biological processes have studied evolution. Therefore, you're argument is wrong.

Can somebody answer the question I asked instead of just stating their views on their own position of the evolution/creationism debate?

Answer 1

I'm an evolutionist but I'll change my mind if enough data was presented, say God would demonstrate creation in action.

Answer 2

Evolution is a fact.

If you want me to think that creationism is true then you need to produce the evidence. But there is none.

There is some half truths that creationists hype and spin, but it all vanishes like mist when looked at critically. Meanwhile the current scientific position is supported by all the evidence. If it was not then that position would change. Something science is happy to do while religion is not.

Answer 3

I don't see how I could ever be persuaded to believe in creationism. By definition, there is no way that proof of creationism can ever be presented, whereas there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution. So for creationism to be proven, first they would have to prove that the evidence supporting evolution is all false. Then they would have to somehow show that all forms of life on the planet simply sprung up in their current forms without having changed over time. I can't imagine how these two things would be possible, so I'd have to say nothing will change my mind.

Answer 4

In my own case, I know that I can never be persuaded to change my mind - my life was changed by the power of God.

I was in my mid 20's and I was at an extremely low point in my life, and someone offered to pray for me.

I did NOT believe in Jesus. I was NOT raised in a Christian home. I was always taught that Jesus was some kind of a liar, possibly a demented lunatic, and above all else, dead.

So I figured that talking to a dead man wouldn't matter, so I said OK.

Well, he prayed, and God answered! And I had what I can only call a "revelation" that Jesus truly IS the Son of God!

My life was radically changed that very moment, and I've never been the same.

My personal relationship with Jesus Christ precludes my ability to believe in evolution. It contradicts the Bible, and it also contradicts science and logic.

By way of example, Darwin actually believed (contrary to scientific facts that he didn't have at the time) that the cell was the smallest divisible part of a living being.

He wasn't aware of proteins or protein synthesis, the nucleus, mitochondria and the way raw materials are converted into usable energy in the cell, the double-strand helixical DNA, the RNA, how cells multiply, et cetera.

Anybody who knows anything about logic will tell you that if the premise is faulty, the conclusion will also be faulty, and Darwin based the logic that led to his theory of evolution on a faulty premise, as I already pointed out.

Biblically, the Genesis 1 day is a period of darkness followed by a period of light ("There was evening, and there was morning") So, if a "day" in Genesis 1 actually represents - oh - say, 10,000 years, giving Genesis 70,000 years for evolution, that would imply that for each 10,000 year day, then on any point of the globe, there would be 5,000 years of darkness followed by 5,000 years of continuous sunshine.

This defies the theory that Genesis depicts evolution.

But to make matters worse, do the math and calculate the speed of the earth to cause it to rotate once around its axis in 10,000 years! And what could possibly speed it up, considering that the laws of science (such as entropy and the laws of thermodynamics) state that everything is slowing down, not speeding up!

No, evolution violates the laws of science, it violates the clear and direct Biblical teaching, and it violates logic.

I am not close-minded, but I AM a realist, and I just can not believe in unscientific, illogical theories that fly in the face of proven scientific laws.

Answer 5

To be very honest, I see problems with both, especially in
geology. There are unanswered questions on both sides
for sure!
Biologically, micro, but not macro evolution has it's
proof - there are more and more serious doubts about
macro evolution!
I just think we come to conclusions too fast.
Spiritually speaking, Mankind knew God from the time mankind was created (with the ability to know God) and
mankind has rebelled against God and society has forgotten
more and more about God. Science can be
"worshiping the creation instead of the creator" and
"exchanging a truth for a lie" ONLY when science becomes
something it is not in the hearts of mankind (with it's limitations not being considered).
The scientific strengths and weaknesses of each one
need to be covered without bias, without teaching kids
that we don't need God in attitude or overconfidence
in research (when we know so little anyway).
This needs to be dealt with in philosophy/religion class as
well (in a "perfect" world).
It is just currently being taught with too much bias
(both evilootion and Creationism/ID)

Answer 6

I am open minded, I believe in both creationsim and evolution. I simply do not believe that the bible is allegorical. If that is the case, then the way I look at it, is that God knew that if he caused the "big bang" in such a fashion--then stars and planets would form--eventually leading to the evolution of an intelligent being. If His touch with the preknowledge of how it would all turn out-gave rise to our world today--He is sill omnipotent and all powerful--just a bit for elegant than the bibliolators give Him credit for.

Answer 7

There's no real debate. Creationists have ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, quote mining, and pseudoscientific jargon that they do not test. They take credit for any science they like (despite someone else doing the work), and reject any science they don't like. Creationist lies grow more feeble, and they will marginalize themselves in society.

Answer 8

I'd like for just ONE counter-argument from the creationist/ID camp to be either:

1. Verified and peer-reviewed

and/or

2. Not a wilful misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, documentation or evidence.

Is that too much?

Answer 9

As long as humans are involved in the discussion there will always be disagreements. That is human nature.

If evolutionists could prove that their thoughts are not random I would become an evolutionist.

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

J.B.S. Haldane, Famous British Evolutionist

Answer 10

It would take a lot to disprove an established theory that most scientists already agree upon. I'm not holding my breath, but it's not impossible.

"Evolution isn't something you believe or disbelieve in, it's something you understand or refuse to understand." ~Leviathan