Because Evolution can't be seen it's hard to believe in. Like electricity or skeletons.

@Convivial . Hi. I've not come to cause trouble or argue, but I noticed what you said in your reply to the poster. I found it to be odd that those who believe in evolution, tell us God is not real and are not in favor of us using the example that we know God is real because even though we can't see him we can see his handiwork and that is always met with criticism and rejection. And then I see your reply stating you know evolution is real because you can see the effects. So I'm wondering why it's okay for you to use that example but not for Christians to use as an example amongst many, that we know God is real even though we can't see him because we do see his handiwork in the trees, in the sky, in the stars, of the heavens, in the birth of a child, and so many other things. How do you get away with that but I, as a Christian am told I can't use that example?

@LadyGrace


Because in the context of the believer those examples are only evident if one has already accepted the belief structure.

By contrast, the evidence of evolution is at once observable in real time, traceable through the fossil record, identifiable in the genome and capable of making predictions in the real world.
That is to say there objective, observable and measurable evidences that evolution has occurred.

I don't think the same can be said for seeing god's handiwork in a flower or clouds etc.

@Pikachu well if you can apply that same principle to evolution that happened thousands of years ago, then surely it is only right that I can do the same because I am seeing God's hand in real time. I have seen miracles and those cannot be dismissed as imagination. And when I see a tree, that's evidence of of the hands that made it, my creator. Another example is that people can't actually see the virus, yet they still believe in it and hide in their houses from something they can't see. Why? Again, because they see the effects so I don't like these kind of games where it's okay for one person but not for another and my conclusion is so close to her opinion and belief of evolution, it's not funny. I see no difference actually. Every time I want to give an example even scripture, which is perfectly applicable, I always get oh no you can't use that example..... that doesn't apply. Well it does apply. If you can use any examples you like then so can I and they are not less credible just because you don't believe in them.

@LadyGrace


But that's just the point.
It is NOT the same principle. Evolution is a conclusion arrived at via a synthesis of data that is not only observable in a laboratory setting but confirmed by numerous, independent fields of science and can be used to make predictions in the real world.
This cannot be said for seeing god's hand in the world around you. There is no testable outcome, no objective observation, no prediction that can be made.
It is not the same principle.


Why? Because viruses are observable. We can detect them, observe their physical actions, even manipulate their genetic code.
They are objectively demonstrable, not dependent on belief or interpretation.


Do you believe that Muslims receive miracles from Allah when they pray to him?

@Pikachu or just because you don't like my examples. I may not like your examples but they are true to you. And this thing you just wrote to me:

those examples are only evident if one has already accepted the belief structure

That looks like nonsense to me because it's you making the rules for me and they don't apply at all. They are nonsensical. What kind of business is that that those examples are only evident if one has already accepted the belief structure. That makes no sense at all because the same things I see as a Christian are also the same things any unbeliever could acknowledge without even thinking of a spiritual connection. What that tells me is you want to make the rules but when I specifically show you a scripture that could be taken no other way, then all of a sudden oh you can't use that. I can use that and it's perfectly valid. You just can't set the rules for me. I can think for myself and have the same rights you have. And what I don't understand is that you can use any example or book you like to prove your point but when I use God's word to prove my point and back it up, then it's not acceptable. That's baloney. Not fair at all and you just can't make the rules for me. If you are allowed to use an example you like then so can I. This is just an excuse that some use because they don't believe or want to believe in God or salvation and so they concur that it's okay for them to make the rules but let me try to prove something and it's always wrong. That that proves to me that this person doesn't want to know or learn about God. It amazes me that I can show a verse of scripture that clearly could have no other explanation and is simple as pie, yet someone else will look at that and say oh that's not true when it's right before they're very eyes and could not possibly be misinterpreted to mean something else. That, to me, signals double-mindedness and double standards. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I think when it comes to Bible study we should be able to use anything we like as an example without examining why we can't use that particular example and instead, discuss the thought and it would be interesting to see what we come up with then. I don't need my Bible to confirm my beliefs. The in other words that Bible doesn't mean the difference between believing or not believing because I'm saying that my faith and beliefs are firm. In other words I know not only what I believe, but more importantly why I believe it. My convictions are in my heart and life so I don't necessarily need to prove myself with just one tool. There were those in the days before Jesus was born, where the prophets of old preached revealed their dreams from God and they didn't even have a Bible back then. Yet they had faith and not only that they had great faith.

@LadyGrace

I'm not trying to set rules for you. I'm delineating between what is objective and measurable vs what is subjective and faith based.

What example would you give me of god's handiwork that is undeniably recognizable as such even if someone doesn't believe in god?

What objection do you have to the notion of objective, testable, predictive observation as being different than a faith claim?
This is a point i tried to illustrate with my question about Muslims and miracles. Because they have every bit the same conviction in their beliefs that you do and they believe that they see miracles as well in response to their prayers.
So are they receiving Miracles from Allah? Or in your opinion are they mistaken about that?

@LadyGrace I'll try to answer your question to the best of my ability... One example of seeing reception at work was a species of moth in England that during the industrial revolution changed to a darker shade of colouration to match the coal induced grime the that covered everything.

I don't believe you can"Prove" God exists, you have to take it on faith as no proof does exist