God - A Spirtual Being but why unquestionable?

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
May but it can also take only decades or years or days.

Like I said, atheists seldom know what they are talking about. Take this as a typical example.

There could be millions of living organism existed in this earth, now try to compile a list,

<A> are evolved from <B>

Now fill in A and B, starting with this, as hinted by ToE.

Birds are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
Cats are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
Dogs are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
....

Fill in the millions then tell us how long it takes for the claim that "<something> from single cell organisms" can be falsifiable (if you know what it is). In the end, nothing can be concluded to falsifiably justify the statement that "other living organisms (millions i fnot billions of them) are evolved in the end single cell organisms" as ToE trying to hint.

Your turn now, as you claimed that some evolution process out of the billion of existing living organisms takes only tens of years, now fill in your examples!!!!

<what> evolved to <what> takes several tens of years?

You said a lot but nothing makes sense in terms of a discussion. I choose the most typical one from yourself reply to let you make sense out of it!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Like I said, atheists seldom know what they are talking about. Take this as a typical example.

There could be millions of living organism existed in this earth, now try to compile a list,

<A> are evolved from <B>

Now fill in A and B, starting with this, as hinted by ToE.

Birds are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
Cats are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
Dogs are evolved from single cell organisms <---- how long it takes?
....
I am not sure what you are asking. Dogs and Cats have a common ancestor and birds and this common ancestor have a common ancestor. Dogs, cats and birds did not each evolve from a different single cell organism.

Fill in the millions then tell us how long it takes for the claim that "<something> from single cell organisms" can be falsifiable (if you know what it is). In the end, nothing can be concluded to falsifiably justify the statement that "other living organisms (millions i fnot billions of them) are evolved in the end single cell organisms" as ToE trying to hint.
Again, I am not understanding what you are asking. Can you clarify?

Your turn now, as you claimed that some evolution process out of the billion of existing living organisms takes only tens of years, now fill in your examples!!!!
Evolution is just change over time. I am not saying that single cell organisms can evolve into dogs in ten years or so. We can observe evolution happening through natural selection within our lifetime and in laboratories in days.

<what> evolved to <what> takes several tens of years?
Wild flowers, in the early 1900's the western salisfy, meadow salisfy and the oyster plant were brought to north america from Europe. These species interacted and produced new flowers that were often sterile but by the 1950's two new flowers were discovered from these three original flowers that could reproduce but not with the three original flowers. That is the definition of speciation and an example of evolution within 50 years.

You said a lot but nothing makes sense in terms of a discussion. I choose the most typical one from yourself reply to let you make sense out of it!
Ok.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure what you are asking. Dogs and Cats have a common ancestor and birds and this common ancestor have a common ancestor. Dogs, cats and birds did not each evolve from a different single cell organism.

Again, yo don't seem to understand science. Common ancestry is not something which can be falsifiable.

I can only pick one from your reply as you used to post long but nothing makes sense, even the first paragraph.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Again, yo don't seem to understand science. Common ancestry is not something which can be falsifiable.

I can only pick one from your reply as you used to post long but nothing makes sense, even the first paragraph.
Yeah, you just ignored my substantiated example of evolution within 50 years.

Evolution can be falsifiable such as:
1. Show organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
2. Show that mutations do not occur or are not passed down to subsequent generations.
3. Find the existence of groups of fossils in the wrong layer.

Common ancestry can be falsified by:
1. Find a life form that was not related to all the life we know, such as non DNA/RNA life.
2. Finding life on other planets, it would be very unlikely that life one two different planets would have a common ancestor.
3. There have been many predictions the theory makes and if they were found false would falsify the theory such as if we’d found that the DNA of a sparrow was much more similar to that of a shark than a starling would falsify common ancestry.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, you just ignored my substantiated example of evolution within 50 years.

Evolution can be falsifiable such as:
1. Show organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
2. Show that mutations do not occur or are not passed down to subsequent generations.
3. Find the existence of groups of fossils in the wrong layer.

Common ancestry can be falsified by:
1. Find a life form that was not related to all the life we know, such as non DNA/RNA life.
2. Finding life on other planets, it would be very unlikely that life one two different planets would have a common ancestor.
3. There have been many predictions the theory makes and if they were found false would falsify the theory such as if we’d found that the DNA of a sparrow was much more similar to that of a shark than a starling would falsify common ancestry.

What you do not understand is you expect everything to be related because you believe they evolved and have common ancestry, while we expect everything to be related because the same creator made them all from the same material. The fact that living creatures share DNA such as a shark and a starling isn't new to us, we expect it. But our view of why they do is vastly different to yours.

Can you disprove God's existence? Obviously you yourself don't believe in him, but can you prove this? If you can't then you can also not disprove that God the creator made all creatures out of the same materials.

Also when @Hawkins talks about a cat he does not mean the animal ancestor that walked on the earth that you believe the cat came from, he is going all the way back to the beginning, to when no animals walked around in the evolutionary model.

Do or do you not believe all life sprung up from a one-cell organism or even many 1 cell organisms?
This is what we mean when we say evolution believes 'this animal' or 'man' came from a one-cell organism, yet without fail evolutionists say no man came from a primate. Surely the primate also came from something in this model? Which in turn came from some one-cell organism? It seems none of you want to commit to the premise that man or cats or horses came from some one cell organism when this is what evolution clearly teaches.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What you do not understand is you expect everything to be related because you believe they evolved and have common ancestry, while we expect everything to be related because the same creator made them all from the same material. The fact that living creatures share DNA such as a shark and a starling, we agree they do, but our view of why they do is vastly different to yours.
I believed they evolved becasue there is sufficient evidence to believe they did. Where is your evidence that a god created them? If you have that, can you share it with me? I will share the evidence that evolution and common ancestry can be supported by good evidence.

Can you disprove God's existence? Obviously you yourself don't believe in him, but can you prove this? If you can't then you can also not disprove that God the creator made all creatures out of the same materials.
That is not how this works. You make a claim that God exists and created animals then you must provide sufficient evidence for that claim. I am not claiming god does not exist only that there is not enough good evidence to believe that a god does exist.

Also when @Hawkins talks about a cat he does not mean the animal ancestor that walked on the earth that you believe the cat came from, he is going all the way back to the beginning, to when no animals walked around in the evolutionary model.

Do or do you not believe all life sprung up from a one-cell organism or even many 1 cell organisms?
I believe that the evidence is convincing for belief in common ancestry.

This is what we mean when we say evolution believes 'this animal' or 'man' came from a one-cell organism, yet without fail evolutionists say no man came from a primate. Surely the primate also came from something in this model? Which in turn came from some one-cell organism? It seems none of you want to commit to the premise that man or cats or horses came from some once cell organism when this is what evolution clearly teaches.
I think you are misinformed. Humans are primates along with chimpanzees, so humans could not have come from primates. Humans and chimpanzees most recent ancestor lived about 6-8 million years ago and they share all the ancestors of this most recent ancestor. This is why no one says humans came from primates. They didn't, they have a common ancestor. Going back they will have come from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) which was about 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. What that organism was is unknown but so far all life converges on this LUCA. This is not the first organism to live but the organism that all life on earth has in common.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believed they evolved becasue there is sufficient evidence to believe they did. Where is your evidence that a god created them? If you have that, can you share it with me? I will share the evidence that evolution and common ancestry can be supported by good evidence.

That is not how this works. You make a claim that God exists and created animals then you must provide sufficient evidence for that claim. I am not claiming god does not exist only that there is not enough good evidence to believe that a god does exist.

I believe that the evidence is convincing for belief in common ancestry.

I think you are misinformed. Humans are primates along with chimpanzees, so humans could not have come from primates. Humans and chimpanzees most recent ancestor lived about 6-8 million years ago and they share all the ancestors of this most recent ancestor. This is why no one says humans came from primates. They didn't, they have a common ancestor. Going back they will have come from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) which was about 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. What that organism was is unknown but so far all life converges on this LUCA. This is not the first organism to live but the organism that all life on earth has in common.

I cannot prove God except by my own experience, but as far as I can tell no atheist on here accepts our experience so it is pointless for us to share it. Also as I am sure you know, nobody can prove the spiritual on a message board. It is outside of the scope of the written word. I would love to prove God to you, but how can I do that?
The same way you cannot disprove God.

Hence why there will always be a divide of options that can never be settled in debates.
I don't need proof apart from what I have experienced and what the Holy Spirit tells me, but I can't show you that.

Yes, you may chafe at my incorrect word choice, but I am sure you get what I meant. I don't believe man came from some shared ancestor at all. It would be a bit like you learning the correct scripture references, a bit pointless to your life apart from arguing on here. I believe God made man from the ground as a separate creation which was in no way tied to any of the animals, be they primates or not.

Without God, the physical evidence is I am sure quite convincing. To someone who does not believe in God as a creator, evolution is a very good explanation. But I have a God who told me otherwise and since I trust him I will trust his word. I believe evolution to be a very strong delusion.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

To me it is like a boy holding a baseball bat looking at a broken window. Given where he is, what he is holding and his expression it appears that he broke it, but there is no eye witness to say that he did and he is not saying. Appearances can be deceiving.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I cannot prove God except by my own experience, but as far as I can tell no atheist on here accepts our experience so it is pointless for us to share it. Also as I am sure you know, nobody can prove the spiritual on a message board. It is outside of the scope of the written word.
Would you accept a Muslims experience to believe Allah exists? or my experience that big foot exists?

I would love to prove God to you, but how can I do that?
The same way you cannot disprove God.
Again, I am not claiming that god does not exist so I don't need to prove his non existence. You are claiming that god exists so you need to support that belief with good evidence.

Hence why there will always be a divide of options that can never be settled in debates.
I don't need proof apart from what I have experienced and what the Holy Spirit tells me, but I can't show you that.
I agree, but who's fault is that? Do you think god has the power to convince me that he exists?

Yes, you may chafe at my incorrect word choice, but I am sure you get what I meant. I don't believe man came from some shared ancestor at all. It would be a bit like you learning the correct scripture references, a bit pointless to your life apart from arguing on here. I believe God made man from the ground as a separate creation which was in no way tied to any of the animals, be they primates or not.
Ok, but the overwhelming evidence says you are wrong. Until you can provide good evidence for your claim I won't be convinced.

Without God, the physical evidence is I am sure quite convincing. To someone who does not believe in God as a creator, evolution is a very good explanation.
Evolution is more than just an explanation. It is an explanation supported by tons of good evidence, your explanation as you have said has no good evidence for others to believe.

But I have a God who told me otherwise and since I trust him I will trust his word. I believe evolution to be a very strong delusion.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
So you have set up a system where you don't need to look at the evidence of people that you disagree with. If I agree with you then you are right, if I disagree with you then you are right. No need to evaluate any evidence. Religion has inoculated you against looking at evidence to the contrary to your beliefs.

Also, if this is true then it is your god that is forcing me to not believe, so blame him for my unbelief, not me. In context this verse is talking about unbelief, not any scientific principles but what do I know because god is forcing me to believe lies, right?

To me it is like a boy holding a baseball bat looking at a broken window. Given where he is, what he is holding and his expression it appears that he broke it, but there is no eye witness to say that he did and he is not saying. Appearances can be deceiving.
There is no good evidence to link the boy and the broken window, there is overwhelming evidence linking evolution and the diversity of life. Are you willing to look at it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would you accept a Muslims experience to believe Allah exists? or my experience that big foot exists?

I believe he is a demon/god along with all the others.
Highly doubtful on Big Foot.

Again, I am not claiming that god does not exist so I don't need to prove his non existence. You are claiming that god exists so you need to support that belief with good evidence.

An atheist use to be someone who said God does not exist. I notice in recent years you all seem to be moving the goalposts and now includes people who say they can't know-those we always use to call agnostics.

I agree, but who's fault is that? Do you think god has the power to convince me that he exists?

Most people have to seek out God not the other way around, but certainly he could if he had a reason to.

Ok, but the overwhelming evidence says you are wrong. Until you can provide good evidence for your claim I won't be convinced.

Well, there are creationists on here who enjoy a good science debate.
Evidence for a Young World

Evolution is more than just an explanation. It is an explanation supported by tons of good evidence, your explanation as you have said has no good evidence for others to believe.

And a lot of assumption. https://www.rae.org/essay-links/radiodat/

So you have set up a system where you don't need to look at the evidence of people that you disagree with. If I agree with you then you are right, if I disagree with you then you are right. No need to evaluate any evidence. Religion has inoculated you against looking at evidence to the contrary to your beliefs.

That's your view of it. I consider that it set me free.

Also, if this is true then it is your god that is forcing me to not believe, so blame him for my unbelief, not me. In context this verse is talking about unbelief, not any scientific principles but what do I know because god is forcing me to believe lies, right?

God says that he 'gives people over' to what they want. We are warned and then it is up to us. Let's say science has dated some rocks at 6 million years old. The dating method is based on certain assumptions which you agree with, God didn't force you to agree with it. This is why we have free will.

There is no good evidence to link the boy and the broken window, there is overwhelming evidence linking evolution and the diversity of life. Are you willing to look at it?

Going by appearances many people would say he did, this is how I view evolution.

I will look at it, but I won't agree with it, same way you won't agree with any of the links I have put here.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I believe he is a demon/god along with all the others.
Highly doubtful on Big Foot.
Yet people believe thee gods by experience just like you believe in your god by experience. Why are they wrong and you are right?

An atheist use to be someone who said God does not exist. I notice in recent years you all seem to be moving the goalposts and now includes people who say they can't know-those we always use to call agnostics.
That is not moving the goalposts. It is an honest position. I have insufficient evidence to believe a god exists and insufficient evidence to believe god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or a belief that god doe snot exist. I lack a belief in gods. Agnosticism is we cannot know if god exists or not. That is not my position. Although people use these definitions loosely so it is a good practice to listen to what they believe and respond to that and not get hung up on labels.

Most people have to seek out God not the other way around, but certainly he could if he had a reason to.
I sought god for many years and was a believer for a long time. Why would god not reveal himself to a sincere believer if he wants all of us to be saved? or are you special in some way?

Well, there are creationists on here who enjoy a good science debate.
Evidence for a Young World
The ICR readily admits on their Core Principles page that they have already decided the Christian god exists and all their "research" is based on that assumption. They are not scientists, they have a conclusion that they are trying to find evidence for.

Have you looked at what scientists have said to rebut these claims? This essay is a typical essay by anti evolutionists that don't explain how scientists use these methods and why they think they are reliable, then address that. It is basically a straw-man argument.

That's your view of it. I consider that it set me free.
In a lot of ways it does set you free from having to be confronted with uncomfortable ideas and such.

God says that he 'gives people over' to what they want. We are warned and then it is up to us. Let's say science has dated some rocks at 6 million years old. The dating method is based on certain assumptions which you agree with, God didn't force you to agree with it. This is why we have free will.
I was a believer for many years and today I want to know if god exists or not. So why won't/didn't god reveal himself to me as he did to you?

Going by appearances many people would say he did, this is how I view evolution.
Have you looked at the evidence for evolution? It is a lot more conclusive than your window analogy. Scientists are not just like "yep, looks right so lets go with it".

I will look at it, but I won't agree with it, same way you won't agree with any of the links I have put here.
Just like the ICR you have made up your mind in advance and without seeing the evidence have already concluded that you won't believe it. Is this a good way to determine truth?

I probably won't agree with a young earth but I disagree with them based on logic and evidence. If there is compelling evidence for a young earth then I will believe that. I want to believe what is true do you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yet people believe thee gods by experience just like you believe in your god by experience. Why are they wrong and you are right?

I don't believe they do, only God gives the peace that passes all understanding, a rest in the spirit. Only God laid down his life for us while we did not merit it.

That is not moving the goalposts. It is an honest position. I have insufficient evidence to believe a god exists and insufficient evidence to believe god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or a belief that god doe snot exist. I lack a belief in gods. Agnosticism is we cannot know if god exists or not. That is not my position. Although people use these definitions loosely so it is a good practice to listen to what they believe and respond to that and not get hung up on labels.

If the definition has changed yes it has moved the goal posts. I can only go by your label. So if you have insufficient evidence either way that is still what I would call agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist always use to be someone who categorically stated that there was no God at all. But no matter the label, I am not going to know what your specific take is nor will I remember it.

I sought god for many years and was a believer for a long time. Why would god not reveal himself to a sincere believer if he wants all of us to be saved? or are you special in some way?

Since I don't know exactly what you believed or how you came to doubt or fall away I can't answer.
I honestly feel that evolution has caused a lot of people to doubt scripture. If someone believes in God but does not believe in creation this immediately throws up some doubt about Gods word and how trustworthy it is and I have seen it move from doubt in Genesis along to doubt in other miracles, along to doubt in both Jesus and God.

The ICR readily admits on their Core Principles page that they have already decided the Christian god exists and all their "research" is based on that assumption. They are not scientists, they have a conclusion that they are trying to find evidence for.

Well of course they do, they are creationists. Everyone has a bias. Yours is already firmly held to evolution just as evolutionary scientists are. Just like you won't even consider that animals share DNA or look similar because the same creator made them all out of the same materials, I won't consider that they descended over millions of years. You consider what you have to be evidence, I don't. I believe we all have the same evidence of the world around us and its how we choose to look at and interpret the evidence that changes.

Have you looked at what scientists have said to rebut these claims? This essay is a typical essay by anti evolutionists that don't explain how scientists use these methods and why they think they are reliable, then address that. It is basically a straw-man argument.

If you want to believe that the huge scope and intracity of life came about by chance random process you are free to do so. I do not, I believe God created it.
So no I won't waste my time wading through stuff, I have before. Last time I read an entire page to get to anything that really said anything but waffle. As I said before I am not one of these creationists who debate with science. Creation was a miracle anyway, it was outside of science. Evolutionary Science is just mans attempt to explain things and I feel they are greatly deceived but also assume too much. They can't repeat it, they were not there to see life arise or to view things like dinosaurs turn into birds. It's assumption and a belief.

In a lot of ways it does set you free from having to be confronted with uncomfortable ideas and such.

I was a believer for many years and today I want to know if god exists or not. So why won't/didn't god reveal himself to me as he did to you?

I don't know, since I don't know how you searched. I'm just a regular person.

Have you looked at the evidence for evolution? It is a lot more conclusive than your window analogy. Scientists are not just like "yep, looks right so lets go with it".

Just like the ICR you have made up your mind in advance and without seeing the evidence have already concluded that you won't believe it. Is this a good way to determine truth?

I probably won't agree with a young earth but I disagree with them based on logic and evidence. If there is compelling evidence for a young earth then I will believe that. I want to believe what is true do you?

I use to be an agnostic and an evolutionist, so I had enough years on that front. This is probably why I don't believe either stance can be prooved and that each in its own way is a belief. That it is all in how someone interprets the evidence. I have pretty much been on both sides of the fence half and half of my life at this point, so as for making up my mind in advance, it wasn't that fast.
The best that I can do is give links like I gave before, as I am not someone who can debate science off the top of my head. That is why I said there are others on here better equipped to do that.

Exactly what evidence makes you believe evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe they do, only God gives the peace that passes all understanding, a rest in the spirit. Only God laid down his life for us while we did not merit it.
So what is your reasoning for rejecting other people god experiences if they do not line up with your beliefs?

If the definition has changed yes it has moved the goal posts. I can only go by your label. So if you have insufficient evidence either way that is still what I would call agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist always use to be someone who categorically stated that there was no God at all. But no matter the label, I am not going to know what your specific take is nor will I remember it.
That is not moving the goalposts. Languages change all the time. Look up the word literally and they have added a definition that it does not mean literally but the opposite, because dictionaries reflect usage they do not define words.

Anyway, you are talking to me so label me what you want but I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to believe a god exists. I also think there is insufficient evidence to believe God does not exist.

I honestly feel that evolution has caused a lot of people to doubt scripture. If someone believes in God but does not believe in creation this immediately throws up some doubt about Gods word and how trustworthy it is and I have seen it move from doubt in Genesis along to doubt in other miracles, along to doubt in both Jesus and God.
When I was a christian I believed in creation and a young earth. My belief in evolution was not the main reason I disbelieve.

Well of course they do, they are creationists. Everyone has a bias. Yours is already firmly held to evolution just as evolutionary scientists are.
Basing belief on good evidence is not bias. Scientists believe in evolution because it has sufficient evidence to do so. The ICR believes in creationism first then they go try to find evidence for their faith based belief, that is a bias. That is not what scientists do.

Just like you won't even consider that animals share DNA or look similar because the same creator made them all out of the same materials, I won't consider that they descended over millions of years. You consider what you have to be evidence, I don't. I believe we all have the same evidence of the world around us and its how we choose to look at and interpret the evidence that changes.
This is a untrue. I do consider your claim about DNA, but that claim has insufficient evidence for belief. An explanation is not evidence. I believe evolution is true based on good evidence. So it is untrue that I won't consider your evidence. I just think it is insufficient for belief. You just showed your bias by saying you will not consider evidence for evolution. If you won't then you will never learn anything. If evolution is not true you should not be afraid of the evidence.

If you want to believe that the huge scope and intracity of life came about by chance random process you are free to do so. I do not, I believe God created it.

So no I won't waste my time wading through stuff, I have before. Last time I read an entire page to get to anything that really said anything but waffle. As I said before I am not one of these creationists who debate with science. Creation was a miracle anyway, it was outside of science. Evolutionary Science is just mans attempt to explain things and I feel they are greatly deceived but also assume too much. They can't repeat it, they were not there to see life arise or to view things like dinosaurs turn into birds. It's assumption and a belief.
How would you know? You said yourself you won't consider evidence that supports evolution.

Exactly what evidence makes you believe evolution?
That is a good question. The answer is a bunch. No one is able to provide the evidence in one post. It took me 6 months to come to a good understanding of evolution and the supporting evidence. There is supporting evidence from many fields of study including math, chemistry, physics, geology, archaeology, biology etc. that all converge on the theory of evolution to be true. If evolution was substantially wrong then a lot of not just biology but other sciences would be in question. I would start by understanding what evolution is and how it happens then move on to the evidence that supports it.

If you truly want to know the evidence that convince me, I can provide that but it will take a commitment on your part.
 
Upvote 0