What convinced you of Evolution?

Factual imput: (very simple example)Actual Data:
John finds a fossil in sudan. The morphology is unkown but appears to be similar to a primate. It is found aproximately 6' underground in sedementary rock. The skeleton is not complete (missing skull), a skull is found nearby that is broken into 3 distint pieces.Bob the Creationist's Examination:
A fossil has been found in the sudan, The morphology obvioulsy not being human, must be some form of extinct ape. The depth, rock type and dating methods clearly indicate burial by the flood and as such the body missing parts such as the skull is to expected. The skull found nearby could be from any creature that happened to wash close to the body. Also the skull is in 3 seperate large pieces and is defenitly not part of the fossil in question.Tom the Evolutionist's Examination:
A fossil has been found in the sudan, The morphology appears to have both modern human and apelike qualities, therefore it must be a common ancestor to both species. The depth, rock type, and dating methods clearly indicate great age and that this fossil predates modern man and apes. The missing skull has been found nearby and fits the body excellently, The skull was reconditioned and found in realatively good shape considering the circumstances.Or to put it a different way:
Three blind men who have never seen an elephant before could not decide among themselves what one was similar too. So they decide to find an elephant and examine it. They were all taken to an elephant and allowed to touch it so that they may dicern what an elephant "looks like".
the 1st man grabs the trunk and exclaims "ah i see an elephant is like a snake"
the second man grabs a leg and exclaims "ah i see an elephant is like a tree"
the third man grabs the tail and exclaims "ah i see an elephant is like a rope"
each man described what he "observed", "examined his evidence" and then "determined" what an elephant was like.I happen to believe that the data alone, is the only acceptable way to present evidence. then let people decide for themselves what to believe. I also happen to believe that an elephant is not a rope, a tree, or a snake...

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant~(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation~Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, ~ At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant ~ Is very like a wall!"The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp? ~ To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant ~ Is very like a spear!"The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, ~ Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a snake!"The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like ~ Is mighty plain," quoth her;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant ~ Is very like a tree!"The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; ~ Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant ~ Is very like a fan!"The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail ~ That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a rope!And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!MoralSo oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!-John Godfrey Saxe

Tom has a lot more to go on than just that. For example, he will *never* find a fossil in a layer that does not share the same "period fossils" as the current layer that he found it in (i.e., you don't find trilobytes in the same layer as modern invertibrates). Bob not only ignores the dating data, but he does something worse: while he may claim that there is something wrong with each of the dating methods used, he cannot explain why they all come up with the same result. Tom can often point out that the sediment that it was found in could never have been deposited by a flood, and in fact would have easily been destroyed in a flood. Tom also has back in the museum a complete line of fossils in both directions from the one that he just found, which just happen to match up to their dates. Tom can look at the degree of fossilization, and show how slowly regular bones fossilize in comparison.He may well have other methods he can use for this particular fossil: is pollen in the ground consistant with the appropriate layer of an ice core sample? Is what Bob considers an ape completely bipedal, have tools with it, or has other features that Bob would find unreasonable to an ape to have?Back to the elephant analogy, If Bob cannot explain all of the evidence, but Tom can, Bob is only feeling the tail, but Tom has felt the whole elephant. Bob will have to keep wondering why an elephant hovers in the air... oh, he'll have his theories, but they'll probably contradict the theories and observations of Bob's friends who felt the leg and the trunk.... ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

A sort of example but not something real that we can discuss is it?It seems we start of with dating methods and a flood.Could you go to the appropriate fora/threads and discuss your dating methods? I didn't even know that creationists even had any.Then you could go the appropriate forum for the flood and show how it could have happened.It would appear there is not good discussing the interpretation of fossils if we don't start with the same facts.Facts like, the earth is old and the flood could not have happened. Since you start with the wrong facts you are not likely to arrive at the right interpretation of any fossils are you?

Well I notice that Bob has already decided to ignore significant evidence in that he assumes that the "Flood" is responsible for fossils, and that the fossil is not related to humans. Bob's answer depends entirely on presuppositions that are contradicted by the evidence.Tom on the other hand seems to be simply uninformed in that he goes against the likely evolutionary interpretation. Such a fossil would not necessarily be interpreted as a human ancestor. It would be compared with the other fossil evidence we have to see where it fits in - and almost certainly it would be interpreted as simply sharing a more recent common ancestor with humans than with modern apes. Which is of course where the evidence does point.

This is absurd. The question was on the age of the Earth.Your "actual data" includes almost nothing relevant to the age of the Earth, except for 6 feet of sedimentary rock, and even this in and of itself is poor data indeed. Too little info - "depth" alone is unreliable.However, in your "Evolutionist's examination", you mention "dating methods". "Dating methods" are based on actual data, none of which you mention, but of course these are the relevant factual input to the question!Pick "factual input" for a specific dating method, and try again...

Your cold, rational objectivity in the face of factual data would impress us a lot more if you'd demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the facts themselves. The real point of the blind-men-and-the-elephant analogy is that some people can convince themselves that their judgments are objective even though they know they haven't considered all the facts. If you're satisfied with that methodology, it wouldn't surprise anyone here.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

>>I believe that the bible is literal, and that TOE, Young earth Creo, and Theistic evo, are all correct in part.<<What the heck does this mean? If the Bible is literal, then the earth was created in seven days and there was a worldwide flood that killed almost all life except two or seven of each animal (species? genus?). If theistic evolution is correct, then that didn't happen. Those things are mutually exclusive.It's nice to "just believe," if you don't look at what believing means. When literal Biblicists are forced to look at what they're really saying when they say the Bible is literal, then they're forced to postulate ridiculous things, like all cats (tigers, lions, European wildcats, ocelots, etc.) on earth evolving in 4000 years from the two cats that Noah had room for on the ark. They are also forced to postulate an incredible migration from Australia to the middle east for animals like the kangaroo, wallabee, and duck-billed platypus, and then a migration back to Australia, in which they left no progeny behind on any of the continents they crossed to get there (which they did by either swimming, I guess, which I didn't know kangaroos were that good at, or by taking an ocean-liner, probably one from Atlantis before it sunk).In my opinion, you can only believe what you describe if you don't think or work very hard. Those beliefs are only possible on a most superficial level.

You statement about Tom and Bob is the perfect example of every creationist's problem. There are almost no exceptions.An evolutionist (as you can see from the replies you got) would always look at your example and say, there's a lot more information available, let's include it, and what information we don't have, let's look for.A creationist does what you did. He makes assumptions based on the little evidence you described, and then assumes that's what everyone else is doing, too.Did the flood lay those fossils down in the Sudan? Did the flood happen? How did those bones get there? Do we have any information? Do we have other skeletons to compare the bones and skull with so we can tell whether they go together? Do the three pieces match up into a complete skull?Evolutionists ask those questions and use evidence to answer those questions. The chain of evidence and questions goes on for 150 years, all the way back to Darwin (and, in fact, to long before Darwin), and the answers paint an exciting, awesome picture of a world and a universe that are incomprehensibly ancient and always changing. It's absolutely breathtaking.Creationists, of course, ignore those questions and the whole 150 years (and more) of answers to those questions, stare at the bones in the sand, and say, "Based on what I see under my nose this second, a lot of conclusions could be drawn, and mine is as good as yours, nyah na nyah nyah na na."That's why I'm not a YEC, anymore, and that's why nobody likes YEC's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Your "actual data" includes almost nothing relevant to the age of the Earth, except for 6 feet of sedimentary rock, and even this in and of itself is poor data indeed. Too little info - "depth" alone is unreliable.
However, in your "Evolutionist's examination", you mention "dating methods". "Dating methods" are based on actual data, none of which you mention, but of course these are the relevant factual input to the question!
--------------------------------------------------------------------It was defintely a very "simplified" explination. But I see you grasped my point anyway... That 2 people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Think Courtroom... Prosecution and Defense both have the same data but present different scenarios to convince the jury that they are correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
You statement about Tom and Bob is the perfect example of every creationist's problem. There are almost no exceptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------generalization (logic falicy)--------------------------------------------------------------------
An evolutionist (as you can see from the replies you got) would always look at your example and say, there's a lot more information available, let's include it, and what information we don't have, let's look for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Blanket statment combo generalization (logic falicy)---------------------------------------------------------------------
A creationist does what you did. He makes assumptions based on the little evidence you described, and then assumes that's what everyone else is doing, too
----------------------------------------------------------------------Generalization + thinly veiled implication of previous posters competence.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the flood lay those fossils down in the Sudan? Did the flood happen? How did those bones get there? Do we have any information? Do we have other skeletons to compare the bones and skull with so we can tell whether they go together? Do the three pieces match up into a complete skull?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Great questions and They actually do and have been asked. But there are many questions that are taboo for "mainstreem" paleoscience as well.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionists ask those questions and use evidence to answer those questions. The chain of evidence and questions goes on for 150 years, all the way back to Darwin (and, in fact, to long before Darwin), and the answers paint an exciting, awesome picture of a world and a universe that are incomprehensibly ancient and always changing. It's absolutely breathtaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Generalization + personal opinion....
But I concure that the universe in breathtaking.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationists, of course, ignore those questions and the whole 150 years (and more) of answers to those questions, stare at the bones in the sand, and say, "Based on what I see under my nose this second, a lot of conclusions could be drawn, and mine is as good as yours, nyah na nyah nyah na na
----------------------------------------------------------------------Generalization/accuzation of incompentance of oposition.----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I'm not a YEC, anymore, and that's why nobody likes YEC's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------.... .....

Certainly more than one set of conclusions can match the data. Trouble is, in the evolution/creation debate, only evolution matchs the data; wheras creation is directly contradicted by it.Oh, and generalisation is not a logical fallacy. It is merely a generalisation; and correspondingly only holds for the individual with statistical significance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and generalisation is not a logical fallacy. It is merely a generalisation; and correspondingly only holds for the individual with statistical significance.
------------------------------------------------------------------Ok then the statement "Southerners can't read" is ok logically?
It doesn't matter how "statistically signifigant it is" if only one person in the south can read then the statement is inherantly false.
Thats why these types of statments are on the "SAT" tests as logic errors in the reasoning section.

Actually "Southerners can't read" is, in fact, a perfectly logical statment. It happens to be false, however.Truth-lover described a trend, allowing for exceptions. It may or may not be true, but it is not a logical fallacy - it is not, purely on formal logical grounds, self-contradictory or otherwise fallacious.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-05-2003]

I do not agree with you that the relevant data used in dating methods can be sucessfully interpreted in such a way that agrees with young Earth creationism.And your example wasn't "simplified", it was irrelevant. It lacked any data that anyone - Evo or Creo - would use to arrive at an age for the Earth.