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!

[Danmark]

I don't accept macroevolution (without God) based upon 3 reasons.

1. Abiogenesis problem
2. Consciousness problem
3. Lack of supporting evidence for it

Abiogenesis is the more difficult issue; however, considering we are doing experiments and hypothesizing about an event 4.5 billion years distant, the evidence showing the possibility, if not the likelihood of abiogenesis is astounding.

... they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light and that those building blocks could have all existed at the same time.... http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-r ... earth.html

What 'consciousness problem?' There is none. Considering the unimaginable complexity of the human brain simply from a biochemical standpoint, consciousness necessarily emerged without any magic from an invented magical hypothesis, i.e. 'God.'
... the human brain has some 100 billion neurons . The number of connections seems less precise, but it is at least several 100 trillion connections....
http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.co ... brain.html

Finally the supporting evidence for evolution is extraordinary. There are few theories that are better supported. In fact, it it so well supported, scientists refer to the evolutionary process as fact.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution

Against these arguments, supported by facts and documentation, we have your opinion, supported by nothing.

[theStudent]

[Replying to Clownboat]

Where did you get the idea that For_The_Kingdom holds to the same beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Isn't that called jumping to conclusions?
For_The_Kingdom has his own understanding and can speak for himself, as he is doing.
What Jehovah's Witnesses believe has nothing do do with what he presented.
What Jehovah's Witnesses believe is not equal to all Theistic beliefs.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 369 by Danmark]

The thing about your argument, is that it still all boils down to faith,
Any time someone says, "could have, may have, probably, we assume", etc... It is not a fact.
A fact is something that has been demonstrated to be true.

If it is a fact under the umbrella of what science call a fact, I quite understand, but from the general understanding of what a fact is... no. It is not a fact - not proven - merely a series of speculations, which has been accepted by the majority.

Nobody, as least not I, is against anyone having their faith.
I have mine. You have yours.
At the end of the day, our faith determines how we live.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 369 by Danmark]

The thing about your argument, is that it still all boils down to faith,
Any time someone says, "could have, may have, probably, we assume", etc... It is not a fact.
A fact is something that has been demonstrated to be true.

If it is a fact under the umbrella of what science call a fact, I quite understand, but from the general understanding of what a fact is... no. It is not a fact - not proven - merely a series of speculations, which has been accepted by the majority.

Nobody, as least not I, is against anyone having their faith.
I have mine. You have yours.
At the end of the day, our faith determines how we live.

Niceee. Typically, the concept of "faith" has always been attributed to those with religious inclinations...so much so that unbelievers, who would prefer not to be even REMOTELY associated with religion, look at "faith" as a stigma.

But at the end of the day, they are also the ones who are exercising faith...which is no problem because as you said, they have theirs, and we have ours.

The problem comes when they pass their faith off as an absolute fact, and then have it being taught as a rule of law paid for by tax payers dollars. That to me, is the problem.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 370 by theStudent]

Yeah..and I don't even like Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for (overall). It is more of an insult to me to attribute them with me.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 370 by theStudent]

Yeah..and I don't even like Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for (overall). It is more of an insult to me to attribute them with me.

Well let me step up and apologize to you For_The_Kingdom. I think I implied/stated/accused you of being a JW at least once. I think I assumed based on some links you were using and your handle. My bad and my sincere apologies. I don't like it when ANYONE is misrepresented. I will try better in the future to not make such assumptions.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate...

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 370 by theStudent]

Yeah..and I don't even like Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for (overall). It is more of an insult to me to attribute them with me.

Well let me step up and apologize to you For_The_Kingdom. I think I implied/stated/accused you of being a JW at least once. I think I assumed based on some links you were using and your handle. My bad and my sincere apologies. I don't like it when ANYONE is misrepresented. I will try better in the future to not make such assumptions.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate...

Its all good. LOL.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 373 by For_The_Kingdom]

Well I am glad you clarified that with more detail.
It's a shame some so hastily jump to conclusions without any basis for doing so.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by DeMotts]

a personal experience wherein God reveals himself to me, beyond any doubt that it may be a hallucination or otherwise conjuring of my mind

- an interaction with God that could validate that he is indeed the Christian God (or any particular god) and not Zeus, Allah, etc.

- some type of demonstration of power would be nice too

I agree with this, and have discussed this many times with theists. Some of them say that they themselves had one, two or all three of these things, and that is why they believe...but then when I bring up that such things have not happened to me, they then change tactics and argue for why I should believe in God anyway, sans these three things that happened to them but apparently is not required at all?