What Would Change Your Mind

That's a good question. I'd say, just for a basic answer, that if I found out there was a conspiracy among scientists to decieve the public about evolution (through the use of all of the evidence we currently have), that would change my mind.

However, such a conspiracy would be ridiculously impossible to pull off.

 

Quote from Dr. Soren Lovtrup in 1987:

Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical therory. I suppose that no one will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what happens in biology: ...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: "How did this ever happen?"

Looks like the "ridiculously impossible" is being done right before our eyes.

 

So if what that "Dr" claims to be true, were in fact, true you would accept creationism?

 

Huh?

 

The weakness of the young earth position is its seeming blindness (and deafness) to physical evidences of an ancient earth. I will have to be convinced that the earth is indeed very young.

Young Earth Creationists are doggedly working on alternative scientific theories to explain the various data that has been collected. Much of the evidence, IMO, is fragmented, biased and spotty.

Once YEC can provide a unified theory that is both simple and empirically accurate, once the theory proves successful in its ability to predict events and shows its ability to successfully guide new research into areas that are productive, and when this same theory demonstrates a capacity to solve both internal problems and external difficulties, then I will be convinced to change my mind.

That or God telling me that the days really were 24 hours long!
Rob

 

I would have to be convinced that my exegesis of Scripture is wrong, including

1. My understanding of Ex. 20:11 (and other Biblical passages) that teach me that God created all things in 6 24-hr days.

2. My understanding of Rom. 5:12 that teaches me that there was no death before the fall.

3. My understanding of Gen. 1:31 that teaches me (1) that Satan could not have fallen between Gen 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 and (2) that death could not have occured prior to then if everything was "very good" according to God.

4. My understanding of 'bara in Gen. 1:1 and my understanding of Hebrews 11:3 that teaches me that God created the universe Ex Nihilo (out of nothing).


My faith in God's Word trumps the scientific conclusions of otherwise brilliant men.


Andy

 

I have given this question a great deal of thought, hence my delay in answering.

I would have to say, no. Someone earlier quoted Kurt Wise who basically gave the same answer. I guess I stand where he does.

God's special revelation (Scripture) gives us a better picture of God and His truth than does His general revelation. I would have to be convinced that my understanding of Scripture is faulty.

Yes, I agree with that.

Andy

 

Finding dinosaur fossils, such as T-Rex, that carbon data to the same era as humans.

Finding Wolly Mammoth, or for that matter, human remains that date to the jurassic era.

Finding homo ergaster remains that date in the same era as cro magnons.

 

Dying, and never appearing in the presence of the Lord whom I met on November 6, 1999 at 7:00 in the evening. Ever since then I knew that my unbelief was just that. I've read His book and His Spirit bears witness that evolution is unbelief. I will only change my mind when I die, and find that I no longer exist because evolution was true and God was not. (That'll never happen though. )

 

James, I fail to see what that has to do with the question at hand. You're implying that since I accept evolution to be a valid theory that fits the facts, I'm not going to meet Jesus when I die. I find that insulting and judgemental, not to mention off topic.

 

And what “facts” are those or do you mean theories?

I’m speaking for James when I say that why should he allow science which is constantly restructuring their theories to contradict his faith? The question is “what would change your mind?” His answer: “Dying and not being in the presence of our Lord.” Is he saying that if YOU believe that YOU evolved from a monkey and if you accepted Christ as savior you will not? NO.

It’s a possibility though that you may be a little embarrassed and maybe a little ashamed when you do die and discover that the lies secular man has fed you are just that; lies, and you bought stock in them.

When I die “if” I’m wrong in taking Genesis as anything other than at face value. I won’t feel ashamed at all, b/c nowhere in Genesis does it say not to take this Book literal. I’m very comfortable in taking Genesis as anything other than historical fact, than to take a chance that it’s all a myth.

[ June 24, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

You're free to believe what you want. Whether you like my reply or not is none of my concern.

Oh, by the way, since nothing will convince me anymore that evolution is true, my reply is on topic.

Edited to say thank you and amen to john6:63

[ June 24, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

While I cannot say for certain that my mind would be changed, proven accurate dating would be one of the few starting points. I would demand a valid consistent dating method, not based on assumptions or circular reasoning. This would preclude the geologic column, radiometric dating, and a uniformitarian model of natural history.

Since I have probably just made the task impossible, I doubt my mind will be changed soon. In fact, this is one of the problems with the non-biblical theories. Claims about age are consistently made based on dating methods that are themselves theoretical. The Bible claims to be God's Word and true. When science is indefinitely uncertain, I find no reason at all to believe the Bible means anything other than what it says.

Meatro- You asked elsewhere about my position on OEC or long first day creationism. I think the position stands as a possibility since the biblical argument against it would rest with the word "day". While I find no reason to believe that "day" means anything more or less than one of our days, I also realize that time is measured by the Sun and moon which were not created yet and that God was the only one operating at the time- He is not limited by our time so measuring His acts of creation by our sense of time is a ridiculous notion.

This is a fairly unreasonable request since the funding behind YEC is a tiny fraction of that going to evolution-based, naturalistic scientific research.

Why would this be an expectation for YEC and not OEC and evolution?

These expectations have NEVER been a function of natural history theory. No applied science innovation or discovery is dependent on an old earth or evolution.

No theory of origins does this perfectly (which serves as a negative proof for God). As noted above, if YEC had the resources available to other scientists, much more success would be seen on this front.

 

The fact that cro magnon remains and t rex remains never appear, nor do they date, to the same era in time.

The fact remains of wolly mammoths, sabre tooth cats, and similar extinct animals date to a few thousand years ago, but do not date to the jurassic or triassic periods.

The fact that homo ergaster and neanderthal remains do not date to the same time perios of each other.

The fact that animals in isolation are different than animals in a shared populus (Australia, for example).

The fact that animals and animal remains on the east coast of South America are related to animals and animal remains on the west coast of Africa, suggesting that the two continents were once united.

Should I go on?

 

I agree with Aefting: you'd have to show me that the Bible didn't teach young earth creationsim! Why must I allow science to tell me what is right or wrong? Science is only about the production of models, which are only ever as good as the current data, as you should know. In fact, once-uon-a-time science taught us that the planets and sun travel around the earth on crystaline spheres, on epicycles and deferents. Should I believe that? (BTW I'm one of those consistent creationsits who also believes the Bible when it says the sun goes around the earth - though not as per Ptolomy's model).

P.S. Why did you only ask the evolutionists for evidence that would make them reject evolution, rather than evidence that would make them accept young earth creation?