Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

What proof of evolution would satisfy creationists


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 116 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Mar 2014 09:45:32 GMT
Bearman says:
Evolution comes up quite regularly on these threads, and creationists constantly keep holding up examples of things which they say disprove evolution. Non-creationists provide explanations as to why these are wrong or irrelevant, but these explanations are never accepted.

So here is a question for creationists:

What evidence would you need to see, that would convince you that evolution actually happens in the way biologists claim, and that the earth really if billions of years old?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 10:01:30 GMT
If it said so in the Bible.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 10:08:09 GMT
Bearman says:
mmmm, not the answer I was hoping for.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 10:15:14 GMT
Firstly Id say that you get different degree's of creationists.

There are many different mainstream religions who believe the universe was created and we were singled out for special treatment, but still accept evolution as the method for the diversification of the species.

I would normally classify them as the sort who are intelligent enough to not dismiss evolution, but not quite strong enough to question the brain washing they have had for their entire life.

Then you get the Young Earth creationists who believe that it all happened just like it did in the Bible.

These people are pointless to discuss evolution with, and should simply be treated with the contempt their ideas deserve. The best hope is to educate their children properly and a state controlled curriculum, which does not allow them to be taught lies as fact.

At least then the brain washing they'll receive at home will be countered by the reality of the world elsewhere form a young age.

To answer your question however -

Nothing - if you have a YEC, there is not a thing you could show them.

Seriously if you invented a time machine and took these people back in time, they'd put their fingers in their ears and say you were putting some show on for them to tempt them like Satan.

You could even take them meet Jesus if he ever existed and if it did not match their own mental image, (.e. Jesus if he did exist would not be a white man with a beard, but a middle eastern man)
Or he was shown to be just some dude, or that none of the things happened, they would simply tell you, you were lying. This was all lies, then they'd start googling appears proving time travel was impossible and claiming it was a global conspiracy of atheists.

That's so sad, but it's actually true, some people prefer the lie. The lie is better, it's easier, it's more comfortable and the truth seems so cold and desolate.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 10:21:25 GMT
Bearman says:
Its the Young Earthers that I was aiming the question at. I should point out that not all of them, necessarily believe that the bible is literal, as evidenced by Bradders who thinks the earth is young, and bible references are snippets remembering alien overlords who terra-formed the earth........

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 10:41:44 GMT
Thats true there are all kinds of crazy out there

Posted on 13 Mar 2014 10:48:43 GMT
Sorry but the answer is simple... None.

No evidence is ever convincing if it appears to invalidate core beliefs. Such people will go to extremes to avoid any unpleasant realities and in the end take the 'La La La... I can't hear you' fingers in the ear position.

Posted on 13 Mar 2014 10:58:25 GMT
Bearman says:
Then I suppose I should ask the question "Are there any creationists on this forum willing to stand up and answer the OP question?"

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 11:18:47 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 11:27:39 GMT
Bearman says:
I well absolutely believe there is no god, however, if god were to appear in front of me and a few friends (to corroborate that I was not hallucinating) and said "I am the god of the bible" and then performed a couple of miracles, then that would be sufficient evidence for me to change my mind. There must be an equivalent level of evidence for evolution to make a creationist change their mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 11:37:04 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 12:00:59 GMT
They'll answer it, but in a way that makes it seem like their creationist beliefs cannot be disproved because they are the truth of the word of God, which is infallible.

Or they'll ask the question in reverse, which everyone here will answer pretty much straight away with various things that would make them believe. Then the conversation will be derailed into the usual nonsense.

Or someone will just cut and paste articles from websites showing why our science is all wrong ( I think we know who that will be)

Or Spin will post some drivel about how the forum Mafia are once again trying to corner some poor young innovative thinker into their agenda of destruction.

Still amazes me why that guy gets replies to anything he posts ever, the ultimate forum troll - put him in ignore people and he will get bored with no replies and stop posting.....Please.

But you will not genuinely get someone to admit that if some sort of evidence was shown to them, they would amend their entire belief structure. It's a simple cultist mentality in a more mainstream environment.

To consider what would make you change, you have to question your own Faith, this is something they are scared to do, because they subconsciously know it does not add up.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 12:02:15 GMT
Nope, you are speaking rationally, they are not rational at all.

Posted on 13 Mar 2014 12:16:39 GMT
Spin says:
There is a movement called "Christian Science", which I believe, attempts to argue that scientific fact supports the bible stories. I am not familiar with the details of their arguments, but I think that these are the folk that one might eventually convince of the truth of evolution and geological time. A Christian reading science cannot but be influenced by the logic of the argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 12:35:25 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 12:38:44 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 12:49:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Mar 2014 12:51:05 GMT
Bearman says:
Gomsy, I know that linguistics is not one of your strengths, but I think it is clear from the OP that I am asking what amount/type of evidence constitutes proof, from the point of view of a creationist. Normal people use evidence to prove a point. Its really quite a simple concept.

There is also plenty of evidence for evolution. Scientists say that it is proof. Creationists say that it is not.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:01:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Mar 2014 13:03:30 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:09:21 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:24:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Mar 2014 13:25:16 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:28:19 GMT
So what evidence/proof of Evolution would convince you in the theory?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:33:10 GMT
Bearman says:
Au contraire right back at you spin. There is plenty of EVIDENCE supporting evolution. Transitional fossils, comparative DNA, Darwin's finches etc etc etc are all EVIDENCE. Your "adaption and mutation" are evidence. The questions is whether there is sufficient EVIDENCE to PROVE it. As I said, scientists are happy that there is sufficient EVIDENCE to PROVE evolution is real. Misinformed, delusional and zealously religious people say that this is not sufficient PROOF.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:33:42 GMT
Bearman says:
Ah bless! Poor little Gomsy! Did I tread on your itty bitty ego?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:42:06 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2014 13:50:08 GMT
Bearman says:
Mutation is not a theory. It is an observable and measurable fact. It doesn't matter how many times you type it, but there is plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution. You seem to be having trouble differentiating between the meanings of "evidence" and "proof". Evidence for something does not necessarily constitute proof. Marylin's posts are evidence to support the theory that she is deluded and homophobic, however, they are not proof because all her posts could just be a wind up. Her posts, if coupled with the report of a psychologist who had interviewed on multiple occasions could be considered by many to be sufficient evidence to constitute proof. See the difference yet?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  116
Initial post:  13 Mar 2014
Latest post:  17 Mar 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions