At the outset of 2008 it might be fun to speculate on what might seal the deal for either naturalism or RTB's brand of creationism. What evidence from science in 2008 would really solidify the case? Is there one discovery that would validate one model but falsify another (assuming all parties think objectively and logically)?
Both sides will be tempted to say at least a couple of things about the other in this little exercise, so let's acknowledge that up front. The naturalist and the Christian alike might say that no amount of evidence will convince the other side because both sides have made faith commitments to their positions. The Christian might add that only a work of God (the Holy Spirit working through the gospel) will change hearts and minds. The naturalist might add that the Christian's "blind faith" simply reinterprets the evidence to fit god-of-the-gaps thinking.
Both sides might also assert that no piece of evidence is missing. Any new discovery is simply icing on the cake. The case has been strong enough for years, decades, even centuries (again, for minds open to the truth).
Given these caveats, what kind of discovery would do it for you? In addition to RTB fans, I hope to hear from those of you who hold to a naturalistic view. You really spice up the discussion. Just remember to write so I don't have to withhold your comments from being posted (which you've been very good at thus far).