Amazon.com Widgets

Is evolution (speciation) a religion or scientific fact? (Please do not answer without using empirical evidence)

Asked by: Newlife
  • Of course it is

    97% of scientists say that it is a fact. That's good enough for me. You can't argue over a scientific fact so if the vast majority of scientists tell me that it is true and they use empirical evidence to prove it then I believe that. It is an absolutely, undeniable, non-debatable, unequivocal fact that creationist nutcases seem to find hard to swallow because it injects a bit of humility into their lives. Well sometimes the truth is inconvenient but when smart people who have done the research tell me a fact and most reasonable people believe it then I know where I stand.

  • Evolution can't be a religion by definition

    Definition of religion:
    1 a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
    b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    Evolution does not adhere to any of these ideas, and it is not a dogmatic, faith based belief in general.

    So, at this point we have seen that organisms change over time. We have observed these things directly. Enough changes over time and you get species that can no longer interbreed. This is known as a speciation event. The pattern is there, and is fairly convincing.

    But there is more. They have actually used rapidly reproducing organisms, bacteria if I recall, and demonstrated that effect directly. So, even farther than demonstrating that it has no commonality with religion, we have direct proof outside the models that the models describe the process correctly.

  • Yes i agree with hcarl21, scientific fact is first

    His evidences are clear and scientific fact is speciation of the human evolution. Humans grow with science, even before religion even was a thing. If there weren't scientific facts then there would have not been religions. Matter of fact that religions are fake and they are made just to lure people into a weird unimaginable path and just to control people.

  • Yes i agree with hcarl21, scientific fact is first

    His evidences are clear and scientific fact is speciation of the human evolution. Humans grow with science, even before religion even was a thing. If there weren't scientific facts then there would have not been religions. Matter of fact that religions are fake and they are made just to lure people into a weird unimaginable path and just to control people.

  • Evolution is found throughout multiple examples in nature, here on Earth, and there are multiple proofs against creation.

    Today I will be covering three key points. All of these are pertaining to previous evolution examples seen in everyday life. My first point is that without evolution, the out of Africa theory would be void, and humans wouldn't all have started out equal. My second point is that if evolution didn't exist, then why would different species have evolved to become what they are nowadays. My third and final point is that creation is a moot point due to the flaws in their own logic.

    Now, onto my first point. Scientists currently believe that the out of Africa theory is the correct theory for man's evolution, and the fossil evidence is proved as well. Even if god created all men in Africa, the fact that the skin pigmentation has changed over the past many centuries is still evolution. And if evolution exists, and so does human equality in the beginning, then it is in equilibrium. Without evolution we would have no change, and nature has shown us that we need change.

    My next point is that almost every species of animal on Earth (even humans) has been linked to previous species. There is a reason that each animal has become stronger, and we see it in history itself. If god created everything to be interconnected with nature in one big circle, then why have humans begun as cave-dwelling peoples that have, over time, become house-dwelling and smart? Why, evolution, of course! Because the strong have, over time, outbred and out-survived the weak. And that itself is evolution in a nutshell.

    My third and final point is that creation is logically flawed. As I have previously hinted, if god meant for nature to be in harmony, or if he desired the human race to have any care for the planet, then why would he create unnecessary subspecies like the neanderthals and Homo Erectus? Why would god not simply create perfect humans and perfect animals? Why would it take centuries for humanity and nature to reach its peak? And on that subject, why does god allow humanity to progressively get worse and worse for their care for the environment. I guess, that is the evolution of our technology. And our technology has developed with our minds developing.

    So, in conclusion, there appears to be no conceivable way that humanity and life as we currently know it would exist without evolution. Humans' knuckles would drag on the ground, we would live in caves, and the smartest of us would have some trendy new fire. So, without evolution, humanity would not exist as it does today. And if god (or some other higher power) created mankind in his/her/its image, then why has humanity changed so much over the last many centuries?

  • Ok, what does that mean?

    I think that evolution is a proven fact, and the only reason people deny evolution is because of Christianity or Mormonism or Islam or Judaism, even though there is no specific place that says it couldn't have happened. Theists usually ignore the filler parts or claim they're metaphors anyways. Why can't they do it with the 7 days part? It just makes the religion seem anti-science.

  • It's a well-observed scientific fact. Just google ''evidence for evolution'' and read it without having a conspiracy-theory mindset.

    Evolution is not a religion, just like gravity isn't a religion. You don't see people saying stuff like: ''those newtonists blindly worship gravity! If gravity is real, how can morality exist then? If things always fall down, everything would be already at the bottom of the universe! Just read the bible/quran and realize that newtonism is false!'' You're don't see that, right?

    Evolution, just like gravity, are scientific theories that have been well-established using the same exact strict methods of validation.

  • Darwin and Evolution proven FALSE after completion of all experimentation.

    Evolutionary Science has proven no Living tissue, plants nor animal can be formed in nature. Leaving creation as the only viable option remaining. This is evident in the planets that surround Earth all are barren and void for billions of miles in all directions.

    That earth could have formed WITH EXISTING vegetation is more than ludicrous. This and the knowledge after continuous failures to produce a living tissue or vegetation through natural processes, was the death nell of Evolution.

    The new question is WHO created Living vegetation and creatures now that it is proven that nature could not!

  • Watching TV isn't science

    All who claim that "there is empirical evidence of evolution in our own time" are getting this information from television programming. Saying "scientists did the science already" is not conducting science nor providing empirical evidence, only anecdotal evidence. Just because people want to believe the television isn't lying doesn't make it so. The very word "NASA" means "to lie" in Hebrew; the moon landing nor any space related accomplishment is obviously globalist propaganda whose only purpose is to deny God's Word (aka. The truth). The earth isn't a constantly moving ball; it's a perfectly still and relatively level plane. The earth isn't billions of years old; it's around 6000 years old. Dinosaurs are merely an aristocratic conspiracy, mixing up animal bones with plaster to create fantastical lucerferian abominations to sell movie tickets to the dumb masses.

  • Honestly, no, it's not. Not without both

    Simply taking science and scrapping off religion would be half-assed and would be the type of biased argument that most people on the other side would instantly ignore you for. The Abrahamic religions make up about 3 billion people, so therefore, almost half the Earth's population would most likely scrap off your argument if you didn't make reference to both.

    Now, science has made many mistakes along the way, for example considering the earth was flat, the four humours in medicine, phlogiston in chemistry, and so on and so forth, evolution might just be one. We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but I don't think we, the most intelligent and only sapient beings on this planet evolved from bananas, have we ?

  • Yes i agree with hcarl21, scientific fact is first

    His evidences are clear and scientific fact is speciation of the human evolution. Humans grow with science, even before religion even was a thing. If there weren't scientific facts then there would have not been religions. Matter of fact that religions are fake and they are made just to lure people into a weird unimaginable path and just to control people.

  • Yes i agree with hcarl21, scientific fact is first

    His evidences are clear and scientific fact is speciation of the human evolution. Humans grow with science, even before religion even was a thing. If there weren't scientific facts then there would have not been religions. Matter of fact that religions are fake and they are made just to lure people into a weird unimaginable path and just to control people.

  • It's Neither One

    I'm not sure what yes or no would mean for most people, since two opposing yes/no questions were asked, nonetheless, the answer to both questions is no.
    Evolution is a Scientific theory, based on facts, but evolution is not, in and of itself, a fact. A Scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is supported by facts and evidence, but it is a theory, and a theory does not imply that all aspects of and mechanisms by which the theory operate are fully understood. Since the theory existed, there have been many things discovered regarding the mechanisms that were not initially known. There are unknown aspects today, but so far, the evidence has supported the theory. Consider Einstein's theory of Relativity: it's a theory that evidence has supported since it's postulation, but that does not mean we know everything about Relativity and can call it a fact.
    Probably seems to be splitting hairs regarding definitions, but definitions are important. If you give an explanation of something using facts, the explanation itself doesn't become a fact.
    Evolutionary theory doesn't rise to the level of physical law, because a physical law typically requires the explanation to be able to be postulated in a mathematical way that can be used to make predictions. I don't see evolution ever being able to reach that level, because evolution observed by looking at history. You can study the past and gain insight into how and why changes took place in an species or group of organisms, but you can't predict the future evolution of the group or species; that would require knowing the future of all aspects of the world that may influence the evolution of the species.

    Evolution is not a religion, because it does not require worship of anything, and does not rely on faith. If strong evidence came out tomorrow that disproved the theory, the theory would need to be modified or scrapped. Faith is not involved, because we are basing the theory on observation, not trust in an unknowable force or entity.
    That being said, I don't see a reason that people cannot incorporate the theory into religious ideology. I don't think Evolution disproves any religion explicitly, and I think many religions are compatible with evolution. I think the biggest clash between the two ideas usually rears it's head when people on the religious side take certain religious scripture in a very literal sense, unwilling to explore the possibility that certain scriptures might be a representation of an idea or concept rather than a historical account of exactly what happened; or when evolutionary theory is used as an attack on a religion or religion in general.

    Posted by: rtl0

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
2far4u2CharlesDarwin says2018-06-22T05:28:36.273
Loaded question fail.Blog.Org
2far4u2CharlesDarwin says2018-06-22T05:29:34.507
Both
2far4u2CharlesDarwin says2018-06-22T05:43:31.940
As we evolve religion evolves and as religion evolves we evolve. I suppose there is no such thing as a stupid question. But stupid is as stupid does with a stupid answer.