### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###

Of course some forms of evolution is 'real'. Just as humans getting taller or shorter, etc... but how can each new 'epoch' have its brand new beginnings, time and time and time after each 'extinction'? But that is what the current world does sit with every day when they try to debunk God with science and evolutionary 'findings'. imagine trying to sit with the explainers of each new rebirth if that is what they teach for some 'science' of life and life's Truths. It would be a chaotic headache. How many 'extinct' periods were there supposed to have been? 3 or so? Then how the 'rebirth' after each one to have the 'evolving' cycle begin all over again. If Science was able to realize that all belongs to God, they would probably advance much quicker and in greater strides if they worked in conjunction with what the Truth about God IS. Rather than 'debunking' God, seeing how evidences 'prove' God would probably have greater results. For example. Carbon dating. Although carbon dating is a science, how can they give reason for a rebirth after any extinct epoch? Most of the early Scientists received their inspirations to arrive to their scientific conclusions from The Holy Bible and other 'Holy' texts.
Science does not know what is real (as religions pretend to do) but knows what real is.All scientific advancement comes either from faith or chance. Religion is based more in gullibility than faith.
science itself is also an religion, you have people that show proof but others dont believe it even if they see proof. so isnt science then also an religion?


People who think any scientific fact is indisputable do not understand scientific method.
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind. [1] The core truths of science depend on empirical observation. The core truths of religion depend on faith. The two are polar opposites. Civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure – the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored... ...to summarize it – the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is religious ethics – the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual – the humility of the spirit. These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. [2] In the sense that science knows what real is, it still can't prove what is real.Science sticks to what we have evidence of, while religion fills in the gaps in the seas of the unknown. We do not know what is there after we die, but there are many religions, all different, and they all tell us their stories. Some are fantastic stories, others are gruesome. Others still maybe inspirational. But they are all only man made stories. The main difference between science and religion is that science does not make us pay for what they discover to be the truth ,but religion (mainly cults) do charge money and somtimes human rights for what they say to be the truth but there is no proof behind their accusations and science will always try to get all the evidence they can. No one knows the reality of life, What is after death?Do any body know?If we get that answer then we can know about the reality.HOW????? a Question???