What evidence would convince you of evolution?

[DeMotts]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 327 by DanieltheDragon]

Thanks.
Do you have a source for this information, where I can read up on it?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 327 by DanieltheDragon]

Thanks.
Do you have a source for this information, where I can read up on it?

Here's a good start, then use the 80 references at the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

[Bust Nak]

I don't understand your posts at times. They are very vague.
You say things like, "Not true." Full stop.
Now you say, "they are not very good reasons." Full stop.

And you say things like "There is no evidence." Full stop.
"Evolution isn't happening." Full stop.

Would you be willing to give me something I can address, Like telling me why they are not very good reasons I gave, as to why there aren't any sensible reasons for believe in evolution?

Because there is literally tonnes of empirical evidence, some of which already presented right here in this thread and elsewhere on this board, including directly observed examples of evolution in a lab environment.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 327 by DanieltheDragon]

Thanks.
Do you have a source for this information, where I can read up on it?

You can use your local library( they should have online access). Libraries are a great and wonderful source of information. Most of what I know about dinosaurs comes from many hours reading paleontology books in high school and college. I could put together a list later if you wish.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 332 by DanieltheDragon]

It's no problem.
I can find any information I want on the internet. It just a matter of digging.
For example, here is one I can start with.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia
If I dig from here, I can get the full story.
Thanks.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 331 by Bust Nak]

And you say things like "There is no evidence." Full stop.
"Evolution isn't happening." Full stop.

I don't - I follow through with information for the statements I make.

Because there is literally tonnes of empirical evidence, some of which already presented right here in this thread and elsewhere on this board, including directly observed examples of evolution in a lab environment.

That's not addressing what I posted.

I understand your position. Thanks for letting me know.

[Bust Nak]

I don't - I follow through with information for the statements I make.

The problem is the information doesn't support the statement you make. Latest example, you posted a whole bunch of stuff to do with the brain, then somehow "there is no evidence the brain evolve." Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 335 by Bust Nak]

The problem is the information doesn't support the statement you make. Latest example, you posted a whole bunch of stuff to do with the brain, then somehow "there is no evidence the brain evolve." Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

The post I thought we were both referring to is THIS ONE.

Regarding the post on the braint, if you did read the post, there would be no need to ask that question. I gave my reasons for what I say, there.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The evidence HAS been presented, presented thoroughly, and convincingly that the Earth is 3.4 billion years old and that we all evolved from common ancestors.

I am not convinced by the evidence that has been presented to me.

Even children who have never had a science class understand evolution intuitively.

I don't know, I doubt if you go to any remote villages across the world that are inhabited by people that are shut off from the outside world and certainly academics...and if you ask any native "where did mankind come from"...I doubt you will find any that say anything about evolution or abiogenesis...but I bet you will find a lot of those people will have some kind of deistic belief, though...and that is at the very least.

That is just my opinion, though.

All they have to do is go to a zoo and see a gorilla. They quickly understand we are related.

Oh, so on that note, if they go to the zoo and see a reptile and a bird, they will quickly understand the two are NOT related.

For someone to say 'show me the evidence' as if a mountain of it has not already been amassed, suggests a level of either ignorance or willful blindness that I find difficult to imagine.

Hey, I feel as if there is a "mountain" of evidence supporting Christian theism. Should I see you in Church next Sunday?

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's about your consistent misrepresentation of science.

It is about my lack of belief in an unscientific theory.

That's not something to be proud of, I wouldn't announce that for the world to know, if I was you.

Jesus Christ...that is who I am proud of...my lack of belief in an unscientific theory is nothing I should be ashamed of.

Please clarify what you mean.

Nvm.

Yes, same kind as a reptile to be more specific.

No wonder I don't believe it.

That's not good enough for using as a counter-argument in a debate.

Okey dokey.

Fine, you got four of those as answers.

Ok, so I got four-non-factual opinions regarding an online article that was about the evolution of wings? Cool.

Therefore we have good reason to think that's how wings evolved.

And since I have good reasons to believe that life can't come from nonlife, I also have good reasons to believe that evolution cannot possibly occur on naturalism.

You are once again trying to downplay the reasoning that actually goes into science.

I didn't downplay it, I just gave the non-fluff, non-feathers, non-bio-babble rendition of what is being claimed.

Right, so it should have been obvious what gliders have to do with wings.

But what isn't obvious is that it happened at all.

Then attack the actual presupposition

Evolution is the presupposition.

as opposed to the logical conclusion given said presuppositions. Stop with the implication that evolution is itself a presupposition. Quit suggesting that we merely presupposed that wings evolved.

What I'd like is scientific evidence that things happened the way YOU (evolutionists) claim that they happened. Mere speculation is not evidence.

That's no excuse to not put topics in the most appropriate sub-board.

Well, put it there, then.