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

[Subduction Zone]

It's a catch-22. If creationists actually understood the theory of evolution and could properly conceptualize it, they likely wouldn't be creationists in the first place. In which case these conversations would never happen.

Yes, the few creationists willing to learn do quickly realize their errors. Those that are left either have severe cognitive dissonance or other problems that keep them from understanding a relatively simple idea.

 

[Astrophile]

It's a catch-22. If creationists actually understood the theory of evolution and could properly conceptualize it, they likely wouldn't be creationists in the first place. In which case these conversations would never happen.

There is another catch-22 in this thread. Only Christians can vote on the question, but a person can only find out the results after they have voted, therefore non-Christians can't find out the results. Can some Christian who has voted kindly let the rest of us know the results so far?

 

[Job 33:6]

There is another catch-22 in this thread. Only Christians can vote on the question, but a person can only find out the results after they have voted, therefore non-Christians can't find out the results. Can some Christian who has voted kindly let the rest of us know the results so far?

46=yes it occurs , 25=no it does not occur, 6=I don't know

 

[Sanoy]

Nevermind. I will start a thread.

I definitely think the process is a real process. I voted yes, as defined, but I wanted to check my belief a bit more seeing how many people voted no. So I ask this. Can someone give me a clear example of a mutation providing something new that did go through the selection process and establish itself in a broadly advantageous way. (IE not a sickle cell type case) A single clear example would establish the truth of whether it has happened or not.

(This is not a challenge, but a question)

 

[xianghua]

Meanwhile creationists and ID followers are afraid to come up with reasonable tests for their beliefs.

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the flagellum, at the DNA level? if not then ID guyes are right and evolution theory is meaningless. if evolution is true it should be easy to do so.

 

[xianghua]

Ah, so you also must need to see Jehovah creating a man from dust to prove that biblical creation of man is possible.

no since we can conclude design in a robot even if we never seen the designer.

 

[xianghua]

No, that is only in your imagination.

so how we can falsify evolution then?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

the first step is basically a light detector. but even a simple light detector need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore even the first step cant evolve stepwise. see the problem?

 

[tas8831]

no since we can conclude design in a robot even if we never seen the designer.

Ah, so creationist double standards then, got it!

Can never trust a creationist to be consistent or honest.

 

[tas8831]

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the flagellum, at the DNA level? .

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the creation of the flagellum, at the dust-to-bacteria level?

 

[Speedwell]

the first step is basically a light detector. but even a simple light detector need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore even the first step cant evolve stepwise. see the problem?

Yes, I understand that you must reject the fact that related components of a complex system can co-evolve. But it's only a problem for you.

 

[xianghua]

Is that really what you think evolution is? A creature magically growing eyes in front of us?

Yeesh.

this is actually what you said. i said that:

"because even according to evolution we cant get an eye in real time. its too complex to evolve in a real time."

and your answer was:

"None of what you write is true"

 

[xianghua]

Ah, so creationist double standards then, got it!

so we cant conclude design when we see a robot?

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the flagellum, at the DNA level? if not then ID guyes are right and evolution theory is meaningless. if evolution is true it should be easy to do so.

No "step by step" explanation is necessary. Why make such a claim? If demonstrates a complete ignorance of the scientific method. And no, that does not mean the ID guys are right. Your logical skills have left you.

Many problems in evolution have more than one possible solution or possible answer. This is one of them. I can supply several papers or videos that explain the evolution of the flagellum for you. That was solved over ten years ago.

 

[xianghua]

No "step by step" explanation is necessary.

so how do you know that the evolution of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so how do you know that the evolution of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so.

That post was in clear English. There is more than one possible pathway to its evolution. The various steps have been confirmed. Why is this so difficult too understand?

 

[Speedwell]

no since we can conclude design in a robot even if we never seen the designer.

Only if evidence of design is present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so how do you know that the evolution of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so.

There are more modern explanations but here is a thirteen year old video:

It is rather simplified, but here is the much much more thorough paper that it was based upon:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

That paper is supported by over 200 peer reviewed papers, please forgive me for not linking them.

 

[Astrophile]

46=yes it occurs , 25=no it does not occur, 6=I don't know

Thank-you; that is a helpful reply.

 

[Kylie]

the first step is basically a light detector. but even a simple light detector need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore even the first step cant evolve stepwise. see the problem?

Your skin can already detect parts of the light spectrum. It's not as hard as you seem to think it is.