Creationists...What will it take?

This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

I dont mean to say, you should immediately abondon your beleifs, i could never ask such a thing. I just want to know, what evidence will be good enough for you to accept it. What kind of evidence, besides what we have today, would you need scientists to find, in order to beleive evolution.

I am asking this question, becuase to me it seems creationists will always fall back on some excuse not to believe evolution. Granted, as of this moment i am still debating whether i can accept evolution, but i am always keeping an open mind to both sides of the coin.
My point here is that, being a scientific based person, it would be very easy for me to accept creationism on some logical facts. Creationists, it seems,from my personal experience with talking to them, will never accept evolution, simply because they have "faith". Some say they are open minded, but it seems no matter how much evidence science provides, they will never truely accept it.

I think it would be much easier to convert a scientist to a creationist, than the other way around.

So my question, once again, is what would you like scientists to find in order to accept evolution?

they will just end up saying that god created evolution... its no use.

Yes, God DID create evolution. He's the creator of all.
Why can't YOU believe that He'd have a hand in creation?
His hand guided life .. molded it ... fashioned it. Whether
it took one day or a million years ... it was HIM.

Why R U afraid to admit that God was the intelligent
designer, the molder in evoluton?

Similarly, FF, why are some staunch creationists afraid to admit that there might not be physical evidence for god's involvment in the world? Surely god doesn't need to leave evidence no?

Evolution is a process that happens after life is created.

n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2. a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.

3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

However it doesn't explain how that life started in the first place....


If you want a creationist to believe that we came to be because of evolution, you're going to have to do a much better job explaining how life was formed in the first place (and why/how did that life decide to multiply into the millions of other species)

Originally posted by Nygdan
Similarly, FF, why are some staunch creationists afraid to admit that there might not be physical evidence for god's involvment in the world? Surely god doesn't need to leave evidence no?

Not when you believe in deism like myself, which is why I'm not concerned about such nonsense.

EDIT: Found the exact thread for my second question

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Linux]

If you want a creationist to believe that we came to be because of evolution, you're going to have to do a much better job explaining how life was formed in the first place (and why/how did that life decide to multiply into the millions of other species)

A quick google search brought up thousands of pages dedicated to the topic of how life may have formed on earth and how it evolved. Lots of compelling reading and evidence. However, I was unable to find ANY evidence pointing to God creating the earth and life.

Originally posted by sensfan
A quick google search brought up thousands of pages dedicated to the topic of how life may have formed on earth and how it evolved. Lots of compelling reading and evidence. However, I was unable to find ANY evidence pointing to God creating the earth and life.

Just as there is no evidence pointing to life being created any other way.

Your statement should read: Compelling reading and theories and "compelling reading and evidence"

Simply because it's impossible to prove (either way)

news.bbc.co.uk...://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html/nature/4104483.stm
heres 2 links showing were science is in creating life from chemicals in the lab if you read closly you will see its only a matter of interatation as to the sucess of this . From the bbc news link read under synthetic virus section and you will see how a virus formed from off the shelf chemicals .
If its possible in the lab surly given a billion years nature could do it.
A quote I like.( If given a infinit amount of monkeys and a infinit amount of word prossers you could wright existence into being.
The odds of life forming through a chemical reaction are billions to one but lest we forget we live in a univers of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and I could go on to fill up the internet with zeros and still not represent the number of stars let along planets . Do any of you know who odds work? you play a dollor on the lotto the odds are 14 million to one . Now you play 14 million $ and are NOW granted you will win .This has accutly been done once in a state lotto when the winnings were much higher then the odds .
so with a infinit amount of planets to work with and odds of a billion to 1 your granted trillions of planets with life.
Ps given trillions of planets with life your granted your wildest nightmare or fondest dream is out there some were.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

I dont mean to say, you should immediately abondon your beleifs, i could never ask such a thing. I just want to know, what evidence will be good enough for you to accept it. What kind of evidence, besides what we have today, would you need scientists to find, in order to beleive evolution.

I am asking this question, becuase to me it seems creationists will always fall back on some excuse not to believe evolution. Granted, as of this moment i am still debating whether i can accept evolution, but i am always keeping an open mind to both sides of the coin.
My point here is that, being a scientific based person, it would be very easy for me to accept creationism on some logical facts. Creationists, it seems,from my personal experience with talking to them, will never accept evolution, simply because they have "faith". Some say they are open minded, but it seems no matter how much evidence science provides, they will never truely accept it.

I think it would be much easier to convert a scientist to a creationist, than the other way around.

So my question, once again, is what would you like scientists to find in order to accept evolution?

Well Luda, consider this. If you took all the elements found in a single blade of grass, put them in a test tube, gave them right amount of light, you couldnt create a single blade. No scientist ever has.

While I believe that animals do evolve, there is no way of explaining the CREATION of life. What creates that single cell? We dont know. We dont have a clue. Even microbiologists beleive in creationism. They have to. Their is no other explanation.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to understand microbiology, but from what I do understand, the workings of a single cell are so complex we barely understand it. How was that cell created? We dont know.......

I not here to talk about whether GOD created life on earth. I am simply asking wat it would take for u to beleive in evolution if you claim that there isnt enough evidence for it.

Saying things like:

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yes, God DID create evolution. He's the creator of all.
Why can't YOU believe that He'd have a hand in creation?
His hand guided life .. molded it ... fashioned it. Whether
it took one day or a million years ... it was HIM.

Why R U afraid to admit that God was the intelligent
designer, the molder in evoluton?

doesnt answer answer my question at all.

I will beleive it when i see sufficient evidence. Which for me, would be in the form of a miracle happening, for example, in a documented case. And being confirmed by variuos independent sources.

Now lets do the reverse....like my orignal post implied. Wat is it goin to take for you to beleive in evolution. Dont start telling me "it jsut doesnt happen"...or "no its never been proven"...or "it doesnt show how life began" becasue thats not the point here.

Let me ask my fellow evolutionists a question now too?...

Wat, jsut like i stated above, would be the convincing arguement or evidence to turn you into a creationist?

Does everyone agree that its easier to turn a evolutionist, because they are scientists and base their beleifs on experiments/trials/prediction/observations, into a creationist rather than the other way around???

I personly think its easer for someone to go from faith to a science point of view .I was very religes when I was younger and took it on faith but time and time again I was disopointed and the more I learned about religion (manny different views even amoung so called christions) the more I relized that it was all a bid gessing game at the same time i have aloways loved science all my life as well and the more i learned about it the more it was proven right.O dont get me wrong there have been theorys that have been showen to be in error but you see that is science .It called learning and formating how it works >its not aloways right but unlike religion will correct its self .
Science works evertime you turn on a light or start you car or even wright in this form its because we dident except it on faith that we could figer out how it worked. How much easer would it be if instead of looking for vage signs or using books writen and rewriten thousands of years agaio if God would just step up to the plate and say LOOK here I am. After all it wouldent take much more then that to show God is real and it wouldent even make science any less real.
Ps God doesent need to strick me dead in order to prove hes God personly If he is real I dont want his job nore could I do it . Becides even if I had the hole universe what would I want with it?lol All God would need to do to show hes God is make the sun disper for 1 second thats more then enough proff or the moon .You see if God is all powerfull then it would be an easy task for him to show it and assuming he is real then that would make the devil real as well and I would think having an rivel that you could take care of with a flick of a finger who is messing with your creation would be a snap.Pss If There is no God quote un quote this doesent mean theres no after life . Energy canNOT be destroyed only converted .(enstine)
this means the energy in you HAS to go someware the only question is it still aware or does it just get assorbed into the univers?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yes, God DID create evolution. He's the creator of all.
Why can't YOU believe that He'd have a hand in creation?
His hand guided life .. molded it ... fashioned it. Whether
it took one day or a million years ... it was HIM.

Why R U afraid to admit that God was the intelligent
designer, the molder in evoluton?

I do my friend. I belive that god is everything, all energy, I deal dirctly with the source of light within us all, no middle man. Churches, holy books, messiah's. That's all cute and if it works for you then fine. I belive that after death there is no "I".

Hi,

The main problems I have with evolution as more than a simple theory are:

1. The absence of transitional forms. Everyone knows that microevolution occurs where features of an animal change in small ways to better adapt to the environment. However, macroevolution is a different story. If survival of the fittest is the mechanism of change, then somewhere one has to have an appendage that is effective as neither a fin nor wing nor leg and, under survival of the fittest, he is most likely dinner soon.

2. The string of accidents that must occur to go from non-life to DNA is absolutely incredible. If anyone has watched our government in action where they try to do the right thing by intelligent intent and screw it up, then you realize the level of faith it takes in evolution to continue in that train of thought.

3. The major scientific philosphies of prominent evolutionists explicitly rule out the possibility of God as the creator and therefore bias the conclusions to such a degree that even a tiny probability that they calculate that it could have happened becomes "proof" that it did happen by those whose real agenda is to eliminate the notion of a God to whom we are all accountable. That is the real agenda.

By the way, I am an engineer from a top science school in the country, Harvey Mudd College, so I am reasonably well-versed in the sciences and yet find nothing at all that convinces me that evolution is a fact or even remotely probable

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

Science.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I dont mean to say, you should immediately abondon your beleifs, i could never ask such a thing.

A very respectable, noble approach.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I just want to know, what evidence will be good enough for you to accept it. What kind of evidence,

Data. Show me the in-betweens and the hows and stop with the freakin' speculations or the "...ah, but what if..." type scenarios.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
besides what we have today,

Therein lies the problem.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
would you need scientists to find, in order to beleive evolution.

I am asking this question, becuase to me it seems creationists will always fall back on some excuse not to believe evolution. Granted, as of this moment i am still debating whether i can accept evolution, but i am always keeping an open mind to both sides of the coin.

Sure, why not?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
My point here is that, being a scientific based person, it would be very easy for me to accept creationism on some logical facts. Creationists, it seems,from my personal experience with talking to them, will never accept evolution, simply because they have "faith". Some say they are open minded, but it seems no matter how much evidence science provides, they will never truely accept it.

I think it would be much easier to convert a scientist to a creationist, than the other way around.

Hey whoa wait a second! Are you saying a scientist cannot be a creationist? There is living proof one can be both.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
So my question, once again, is what would you like scientists to find in order to accept evolution?

An end or answer to this thread right here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

On this thread, Mattison is brilliant. I'm sure you'll enjoy the read.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yes, God DID create evolution. He's the creator of all.
Why can't YOU believe that He'd have a hand in creation?
His hand guided life .. molded it ... fashioned it. Whether
it took one day or a million years ... it was HIM.

Why R U afraid to admit that God was the intelligent
designer, the molder in evoluton?

I would like to point out that most people who believe in evolution have no problem with hearing arguments about God creating Evolution. The most logical arguments for a God still exist with evolution. It is the Bible that says it cannot have happened that way, and Christians who refuse to believe anything else but a book with many flaws.

Originally posted by Seapeople
It is the Bible that says it cannot have happened that way,

It does? *flip flip* Where?

Originally posted by Seapeople
and Christians who refuse to believe anything else but a book with many flaws.

Flaws? Again, I'd need to see what you're talking about. Is that the 'New Antagonist's Version' that came out last week? I heard the reviews on it weren't very good...and accuracy? Oh man...throw that edition away.


[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]

Example of a flaw....ahhhh, so many to choose from. I just talked about one, so I will stick with it.

Can you see the face of God and live?????? Can you??? This is a copy, paste from another one of my threads....

Ex.33:20
"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live."

Vrs.

Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Thats pretty freeking specific)

Or try this one:

Jn.1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time."

Vrs.

Gen.32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."


Everyone, get your popcorn out and get ready for entertainment. As Saint here pulls things not out of the bible, but out of his "rear section" to defend this "minor" error in the bible.

Originally posted by saint4God


Hey whoa wait a second! Are you saying a scientist cannot be a creationist? There is living proof one can be both.

Your totally right, point taken. I made a mistake by saying that a scientist cant be a creationist. I was really trying to say that an evolutionist would be easier to turn into a creationist, not a scientist.

thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by managerie
By the way, I am an engineer from a top science school in the country, Harvey Mudd College, so I am reasonably well-versed in the sciences and yet find nothing at all that convinces me that evolution is a fact or even remotely probable

So based on this, wat will convince you that evolution is real?

Some people say "find the missing links". And that is a totally acceptable answer to my question. But is that goin to be enough for everyone??...I doubt it. So if that isnt enough for you, then wat is??.

By the way, to all those people that say God created evolution, i am still kinda baffled at this conclusion. He created adam and eve(this is based on the christian point of view) or some primary couple(as is with most religions) and then wat??...evolution stemmed from there??...I am still in the dark with how such a proposition would work. I think its a bit of a double standard.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Example of a flaw....ahhhh, so many to choose from. I just talked about one, so I will stick with it.

Can you see the face of God and live?????? Can you??? This is a copy, paste from another one of my threads....

Oookay, a diversion to what we were talking about, but I'm game.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ex.33:20
"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live."

Vrs.

Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Thats pretty freeking specific)

Or try this one:

Jn.1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time."

Vrs.

Gen.32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Hey cool , I hadn't encountered this one yet. Usually the people I hear from don't want to see his face. It's a challenging one too, requiring thought and research. Anyone is free to jump in while I look into it.

Originally posted by Seapeople
Everyone, get your popcorn out and get ready for entertainment. As Saint here pulls things not out of the bible, but out of his "rear section" to defend this "minor" error in the bible.

You know the rules, I can't just 'make things up'. I can try to 'fill in the blanks' at best with reasoning and theory, but will not intentionally bear false testimony. I have a preliminary line of thinking just from reading the chapters but want to see what other substance I can find first.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]