when evolution is true that means religions cant be true?

Question

that means any supernatural religious stories are false.
am i right?

Answer 1

a smart thought & a true one too. now u have the choice to choose.

Answer 2

That's a big IF. However, IF evolution can be proven, and it IS, as of now, just a theory that a lot of people have fallen in behind, and that makes it a religion too because of the belief, then it automatically would say that religions are all false. You can't have one to be true, in conjunction with the other. If one is true, the other is false. What an evolutionist would need to do, is to prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They haven't . Religion, however, can prove that God exists. We have evidence. We can also prove the religious beliefs in idol worship. It is all in history.

Darwin's theory suggests that we evolved from monkeys or apes. Well, science has proven that theory wrong. Our life's fluid is blood. If we evolved from monkeys or apes, wouldn't we have at the very least, the same most common blood type? But the National Blood Bank proves this to not be so.

The most common blood type for humans is O.
The most common blood type for apes is B.
The most common blood type for chimps is A.
Apes and Chimps have almost no occurrance of O, yet humans have the most occurrances of O.
We evolved from apes or chimps? I don't think so. If this portion of the theory is wrong, what other portions of evolution are just as wrong?
Evolution believes the earth was magically formed from some primordial ooze. But when did they prove that primordial ooze could make a fiery ball in the sky and suspend it in mid air for millions of years? Something or someone put it there, as it was intelligently designed to be a source of warmth and light for the inhabitants of earth. So you want to talk supernatural stories? What about the story of liquid ooze making a ball of fire that lasts for eternity? That seems like more of a fairy tale than any religion could ever make up.

Answer 3

Well, religions were formed when humans had no idea about what was going on around them, they had no explication of many things. So they turned to God, Who was responsible for all the good and sometime for the bad things to.
When science hardly started to evolve, and Darvin came up with the evolution theory, people knew much more, some of them believed it others didn't. But evidences where found, so nobody can deny the evolution theory. that is truth that the monkey-human link wasn't found jet.
the thing is that religions should change their base points in time, because those who wrote the sacred books, had a different point of view in their time. It doesn't mean that religions are not true, but religious people should be more open minded and less fanatic.

Answer 4

I'd say you are correct, but some liberal versions of Christianity try to have it both ways. There is strong evidence supporting evolution, and even some religious people see that. They cannot surrender their beliefs, so they make an uneasy alliance between evolution and their religion. I know a Methodist preacher and college professor who holds such a position. I think one must decide one way or the other, for evolution and the Bible cannot both be true. There is strong evidence to support evolution but none at all to support the Bible. Indeed, there is evidence against much of it. There was no world flood; the sky cannot roll up like a scroll; pi is not simply 3; etc., etc.!

Answer 5

druegan2001 explained it best. Science, evolution, explain the physical world. It is real, physical. Yes science does advance but that does not make what comes before it wrong- it just refines the knowledge.

Religions of various sorts explain the metaphysical. Really no proof - lots and lots of anecdotal stories. Some of the stories can be examined and found to have a mundane scientific explanation and some not.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Answer 6

What it means is that;

We do not need to involve any Deity to explain the world as we see it

and

The creation myths described in many holy books are a load of codswallop

Now, it is possible to still believe some religious conventions and accept evolution. I know some people who say that evolution by natural selection is god's chosen mechanism of creation. Others try various rather sophisticated ploys to maintain that the biblical accounts of creation are actually coded descriptions of evolution in action.

It is possible to construct a religious philosophy that is compatible with the proven facts of evolution; I know scientists who subscribe to a a sort of pantheism where god is the universe. So the answer to your question is no, but it is the death knell for simplistic creationist religions like Xtianity.

Answer 7

Only ritual customs of Religions never lead us to attain evolution. Once you elevated , you easily understand religion is just customary ceremony . Religion can not be true to the evolute soul. sure. but how do you evolute, by reading the holy book, memorising and mesmerising the devotees ???
Step by step we have to attain it. It all requires Patience and passion.

Answer 8

I would have to disagree with you.

There are two factors involved in that disagreement. The first factor is the nature of what Science is and is not. Science is not the be-all, end-all of knowledge. Science is, however, a means of logically and reproductively analysing data in a fashion that gives, within its sphere, relative certainty. Science is also supposedly self-corrective, so that if new data is reliably aquired, it can be taken into account and conclusions revised, if necessary.

Science cannot, and will not, take into any consideration the idea of the Supernatural, as it is generally not observable, and tends to resist the repeatability aspect of experimentation. This does not mean that the Supernatural cannot exist, It simply means that Science, within it's limited system of observation, cannot, and probably should not, address it.

There are all kinds of phenomena that are observable and detectable now to science that were not observable and detectable even 20 years ago. The limitations on science are self-imposed, and have to do with it's ability to "see" within certain, repeatable, criteria. It does not deal with abstraction, but with empiricism.

The second factor is the nature of Religion. Religion deals almost exclusively with the supernatural, and falls wholly outside the bounds of the spheres of expertise of science. Where Science examines quantifiable, repeatable phenomena by experiment and analysis, Religion examines feeling and intuition, and the quest for meaning, as opposed to raw data and hard facts. Science attempts to tell us what a phenomena "is" by the the use of empiricism. Religion attempts to tell us what a phenomena "means", and where we fit into a "larger picture," by abstraction. They deal with entirely different spheres.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of the supernatural. It simply does not, within the confines of its system, deal with it in the slightest. Religion as well, cannot prove or disprove Science, or even prove or disprove the supernatural, as it lacks the rigid structure of analysis necessary for "proof" to be considered in scientific terms.

Rigid Science attempting to make claims on the validity of Religion is wrong, as science cannot prove or disprove religion. Rigid Religion attempting to make claims on the validity of Science is also wrong, as it just as equally cannot *PROVE* its claims.

However, the emphasis here is on "proof" and on the idea of "rigid belief." For a Religious person to claim that evolution is false, what they are doing is claiming that their God *couldn't" have created and set in motion the process of evolution. Even theologically, this is a dangerous and rediculous ground. Rigid belief is almost *always* in error.

Conversely, for Science to claim, in the same rigid sense, that the Supernatural cannot exist, and that Religion is false, is equally absurd, for both fall well outside the purview of Science. It is akin to claiming that "Science has discovered all there is to Know, and that it's knowledge is infallible." This is patently rediculous, as the very nature of Science is to constantly re-define its conclusions in the face of new evidence or new discoveries, which are being made on a daily basis.

The conflict only occurs when rigid advocates on both sides attempt to present their particular side as "absolute." And in either case, claiming absolute knowledge is tremendously foolish and easily disproven.

Answer 9

Definitely not. Evolution is biological science-nothing else. It even allows for the existence of a God.

Answer 10

Not necessarily.

Who are we to assume that God, or whomever you call him, didn't use evolution as part of creation. How long is one day to God? In the bible it says he created the animals but never goes into great detail about how he did it or how long in our terms it took.

Answer 11

no, darwins theory of evolution isnt the only one, and his is old and primitive. humans are far far far more advanced than your average monkey, and just because our cells look similar, thats bs because the cells of a fly or ant look similar to humans too, and we did not evolve from flies, ants, cats, rats, pigs, or monkeys. we were always like this. the more the human race makes advances in technology and making life more convenient and more productive, the more we evolve into a more advanced species. and god, the well known, well documented, scientifically proven, extremely tall, god, will help us with that in the future.

god is scientific fact. monkeys are not in my family tree.