As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

you said that evolution is a fact. so prove me that banana and human are related without using a belief. if you cant do that just say so.

You've been given the opportunity to learn and understand what the theory of evolution is, how it is supported, and why common descent is considered valid. There are entirely free courses on the subject which I've posted on this site repeatedly: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses

Instead of taking the opportunity to learn and understand, all you do is argue.

 

[xianghua]

There isn’t any way to demonstrate or prove design. You can find things that look like they were designed, but that doesn’t mean anything. Some things look like they were badly designed lol. I honestly can’t think of any reason to believe that ID is anything more than an extremely simplistic notion pushed too far.

so we cant conclude design when we see flying saucer?

 

[xianghua]

You've been given the opportunity to learn and understand what the theory of evolution is, how it is supported, and why common descent is considered valid. There are entirely free courses on the subject which I've posted on this site repeatedly: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses

Instead of taking the opportunity to learn and understand, all you do is argue.

--

 

[pitabread]

i think you should learn it too.

Indeed I have, which is why I can understand why the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology and how it is used.

You can do the same, but you need to make the choice to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so? and human can speak but apes cant. human walk naturally on two and apes dont etc.

You do not seem to understand. Cats don't have hands, all apes, including you have hands. You are making the error of only looking at the differences, and they are rather minor ones, between humans and other apes and then falsely claiming that that means that they are not apes. That is like looking at the differences between chimps and other apes and saying that chimps are not apes.

Like it or not, you are an ape.

 

[Speedwell]

so we cant conclude design when we see flying saucer?

No, we cannot. We would have to examine it carefully for evidence of design. Just because it is a "looks like" a flying saucer seeing it in the distance is not enough.

 

[VirOptimus]

so you cant prove it.

Science doesnt prove things.

 

[Tom 1]

so we cant conclude design when we see flying saucer?

I think that’s a ‘cross that bridge when it actually happens’ question. If there are actual UFOs then design of one kind of another is pretty much the only option. I don’t know what other hypothetical conclusion you could arrive at for a hypothetical UFO either. A bird isn’t a flying craft built by aliens though. You believe in God - you don’t believe he is capable of an incredibly imaginative and mind boggling-ly complex act of creation? Why insist on reducing him down to some sort of Gandalf figure, tinkering away in a workshop?

 

[Speedwell]

I think that’s a ‘cross that bridge when it actually happens’ question. If there are actual UFOs then design of one kind of another is pretty much the only option. I don’t know what other hypothetical conclusion you could arrive at for a hypothetical UFO either. A bird isn’t a flying craft built by aliens though. You believe in God - you don’t believe he is capable of an incredibly imaginative and mind boggling-ly complex act of creation? Why insist on reducing him down to some sort of Gandalf figure, tinkering away in a workshop?

That presents a problem for IDists. The presence of design is an unfalsifiable proposition. Nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover can disprove the proposition that God designed the universe. Unfortunately, that is not enough to satisfy the IDist agenda. They need the "Gandalf" god so they can make falsifiable claims which they could potentially confirm empirically.

 

[Kylie]

since we know that a motor is the product of design- thus it cant evolve naturally.

You assume that all motors or motor-like things are the product of design in order to claim that they can't evolve naturally. Then you use this to justify your conclusion that all motors or motor-like things are the product of design.

Circular logic.

 

[Kylie]

but we never seen a creature changing into other creature. so we cant realy sure in evolution by 100%. its only a belief. as for the evidence for design see my signature link.

What, you think that a bird will change during its life to become a dog or something? Evolution doesn't work that way.

 

[Kylie]

are you refer to common descent of banana and human for instance? because its clearly not a fact.

Yes it is. You follow the family line of a banana and the family line of a human back far enough, eventually you'll get to a point where they share ancestors. It will be a very long way back and the life form in question won't look much like either, but there will be a common ancestor.

 

[USincognito]

What is it with Creationists and bananas?

 

[Kylie]

What is it with Creationists and bananas?

It's our nightmare or something...

 

[AV1611VET]

You follow the family line of a banana and the family line of a human back far enough, eventually you'll get to a point where they share ancestors.

Watch the pot holes, the bridges out, and the dead ends.

 

[inquiring mind]

You follow the family line of a banana and the family line of a human back far enough, eventually you'll get to a point where they share ancestors.

or... banana nana fofana

 

[Kylie]

Watch the pot holes, the bridges out, and the dead ends.

Care to point any of these out?

Of course, there aren't any, since you don't know how evolution works. Or, apparently, basic biology. There must, after all, be an unbroken line from parent to offspring on both sides. Any interruptions would mean there are either no bananas or no humans, and evidence from the real world suggests that both exist.

 

[xianghua]

Cats don't have hands, all apes, including you have hands..

and apes cant speak but human can. the same logic.

 

[VirOptimus]

and apes cant speak but human can. the same logic.

No, some apes speak, some dont.

Some mammals have hands, some dont.

 

[Speedwell]

and apes cant speak but human can. the same logic.

So which are mammals? Humans or "apes?" If you're right, they can't both be mammals.