What convinced you of Evolution?

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
We all as humans evaluate "data" based on our bias and assumptions, ex. is the glass half full or half empty?Let me illustrate with a short story.
2 students are trying to figure out how long water has been dripping into a bucket. Currently the water is dripping at 1 ml/s. and the bucket containes 1L of water.
Student 1 grabs his calculator and begins to figure out the elapsed time based on current measurements and comes to a conclusion of
1000 seconds.
Student 2 however had a friend that entered the classroom 2 full minitues before everyone else and said that he observed the teacher fill up the bucket and then set the drip rate to 1 ml/s. Therefore this student "knows" that the water has been dripping for 2 minutes or 160 seconds.So which student is right? They both observed the same "data" under the same circumstances but got different results, how is this possible? both students assumed information and based their results on it. Student 1 assumed that the water level had started at 0 and continued at a constant rate, While student 2 assumed that his friend was truthful about what he saw.Scientists as all humans evaluate things in the same manner...

Well thoughout out posts however... The point of the story is to illustrate the human thought process in relation to assumptions...Which was very nicely illustrated through the reply's (assumptions on how the story related to dating methods, how the story parelled creation v evolution debate, how creationists never talk about biology, how I was a creationist, etc.)Generaly the idea was that all humans beings use assumptions and bias to interpret the world and ideas they experience, and scientists and scientific theory are no different.Food for thought...

What has convinced me... well nothing realy.
I don't think either Evo or Creo as presented gives a complete picture of the life. Both are filled with emotion and opinion and neither side feels like it can back down on any issue with out a total loss, so I evaluate the evidence for my self and draw my own conclusions. For example: I believe that the bible is literal, and that TOE, Young earth Creo, and Theistic evo, are all correct in part. So I believe in evolution but does that make me an evoultionist?....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that anybody who has a belief system that includes the "Young" of YECism is badly out of touch with worldly realities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------Let me reply with a certain 2 year old's favorite saying.
"WHY?"-------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Earth Creationism breaks down right from the first word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------In the opinion of whom? since no one posting on this forum was alive 100 years ago let alone a 1000 or a million whose can say what really happend. All we can do is use the data and our own imagination to "deduce" a story that seems reasonable to us.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that "Young" part of your "Biblical literalism
-------------------------------------------------------------------Depends on your definition of young.

------------------------------------------------------------------
But whose story fits the most data?
------------------------------------------------------------------That all depends whats being looked at, and whose doing the looking.-------------------------------------------------------------------
...creationists use a selective amount of factoids to support their position The vast majority of the available data is simply ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Since that is fundamental to all successfull debates (ephasize your strong points and ignore or underacknowlege your weakpoints) it sounds logical to me. Just remember that the door swings both ways on this one. also just a nitpick: technically your statement was a generalization not a definitive statement.------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagination is a wonderful thing, but willful ignorance is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------No complaints here.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is supported by data from a wide range of fields, using verifiable mechanisms and proposing a remarkably consistent timeline
--------------------------------------------------------------------In the opinion of whom?
Verifiable mechanisms? verify processess operating in the past?amazing I didn't realize anyone had invented a time machine. "science by definition is the study of the present".--------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism fails on all these accounts, and depends for its support on just the sort of special pleading (in the guise of 'objectivity') that you seem to advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------This statment seems to be a generalization followed by a thinly veiled implication. Seriously, these kinds of statements are in desperate need of some qualifiers such as: "in my opinion" etc.
And just for the record just because one argues against something doesn't mean he supports the assumed opposite.

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...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------.... .....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

And I quote:"A statistical generalization is a statement which is usually true, but not always true. Very often these are expressed using the word "most", as in "Most conservatives favour welfare cuts." Sometimes the word "generally" is used, as in "Conservatives generally favour welfare cuts." Or, sometimes, no specific word is used at all, as in: "Conservatives favour welfare cuts."
Fallacies involving statistical generalizations occur because the generalization is not always true. Thus, when an author treats a statistical generalization as though it were always true or indicative of a trend, the author commits a fallacy."
End Quote. Copi and Cohen: 100 "Philosophical Reasoning"This is just one of thousands of sources ranging from plato to present day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering most people have very limited understanding of science in general, I'd say it's a dangerous and ridiculous proposition to assume anyone other than the experts should be interpreting data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------So I suppose then that jury's are dangerous and riduculous because their not forensic experts? Seems like a very slippery slope to me...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
My question was directed at Thronacx. He/she is trying to discredit evolution by the old "it's all a matter of how you interpret the data" argument. A silly argument, since when taken to its extreme one can never know anything, one can never be certain about anything. Criminal trials, for example, are based on the idea that one can be very reasonably certain about unseen events based on factual evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------Ah but in trials are there not two or more interpretations of the evidence? (prosecution and Defense)
Also side note (criminal trials often produce inconsistant results)ps. Just for the record Thronacx is a He.