2006-10-21 10:02:06 · 17 answers · asked by Marcus O 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Part of man's evolution was inventing a religion, so the two go together obviously.
2006-10-21 10:04:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Evolution IS a religion. It requies a great leap of faith to believe this stuff.
My father told me this about evolutionists: "They expect you to believe a lot of things without questioning it." And he would know; he attended a public school where they taught evolution.
Some people try to mix up evolution with Christianity, (or other religions) but it doesn't fit together very well. I can't go into all the details here, but if you're curious, go ahead and look it up.
2006-10-21 17:10:12 · answer #2 · answered by ATWolf 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the two are conflicting. Religious texts were written before modern technology (obviously). How can those texts account for knowledge to be gained? Religions begin in order to understand the unknown. Creation stories (in any religion or culture) were for that purpose. We can now use are knowledge to discover and investigate. Scientific theories are never meant to be proved; they are meant to be disproved. Evolution has NOT been PROVED false.
2006-10-21 17:08:36 · answer #3 · answered by elle 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As I posted a little earlier...
The reason I reject such theories is because they contradict the word of God. I have no problem with modern science, but it is important to also recognize the trustworthiness of Gods word compared to the uncertainty of the science of men. The knowledge of man is just not complete enough to be able to even reasonably claim to be able to disprove the Bible, and our theories and methods often rest upon numerous assumptions and involve many scientific variables. For instance, carbon-14 dating is a method of dating that rests on two basic assumptions, namely that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and its rate of decay have always been constant. Yet, neither of these assumptions is provable. In fact, present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950’s (and factors such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would also have direct effects on C-14 level, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time.) Some examples of erroneous dates arrived at through our “radiometric” dating methods include shells from living snails being carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (1), living mollusk shells being dated up to 2300 years old(2), a freshly killed seal being carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago (3), and one part of a mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years while another part carbon dated at 44,000! (4)
Another dating method, Potassium Argon dating, which is used to date the earth (and thus is critical to the evolution theory), is also based on many of the same assumptions as Carbon-14 dating. And it too has proven to be wrong. For many years, what is known as the “KBS tuff” (a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash) was believed to be 212-230 million years old as a result of Potassium Argon testing. However, in 1972, a skull was discovered under the KBS tuff that was dated at 2.9 million years old – even though it would be impossible for a 2.9 million year old skull to be under a lava flow 212 million years old! (5)
1. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
2. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
3. Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
4. Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
5. Bones of Contention, Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266
2006-10-21 17:06:52 · answer #4 · answered by whitehorse456 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that the Bible is relatively vague when it comes to how the world was actually created. I mean, it doesn't really define what a 'day' is, so god's 'day' was probably more like a few million years (in our perception). besides, there is proof that evolution does exist - it doesn't mean that we came from monkeys or whatever, but you can't deny the evidence that's here. but you can't deny the bible either. that's why i call myself a creationist/evolutionist because i believe in a mixture of both.
2006-10-21 17:06:06 · answer #5 · answered by mighty_power7 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm Wiccan. My religion doesn't deny evolution.
2006-10-21 17:20:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm with Heinz (great beans by the way).
Evolution is a scientific fact. Religion is a belief system.
2006-10-21 17:05:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
God is all---
Religion is many beliefs system to worship God and evolution is a theory without proven scientific evidence and none of it is without God as God created all in the first place. god is beyond our human science and anything we could ever imagine.
2006-10-21 17:05:34 · answer #8 · answered by yeppers 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there is plenty of room for both creation and evolution facts in one theory.
2006-10-21 17:06:00 · answer #9 · answered by Francis Z 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
evolution is true, science prooved it, so I beleive it. And at the sametime I still beleive in God. It's just I don't go along with the bible how God just created everything with a simple 'Poof'. I beleive there's science involved there.
Basically I beleive God is a GREAT scientist.
2006-10-21 17:04:44 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋