>>3243496>Is't scientific theory that is heavily verified in numerous ways across the animal kingdom.
In wich way? "This monkey (barely) looks like a human, therefore evolution"? "We share 99.9999999999% of DNA with chimps(if we ignore 20% of chimp DNA and 40% of human DNA)"? Hereditary traits? How does a guy with a big nose having a son with a big nose supports evolution in any way? Hereditary traits work with things that are already there, they don't grow functioning arms out of nowhere.>All we're missing is a video recording of it happening over the last billion years.
So all we are missing is observing it happen, wich is the first step of the scientific method. I mean, i'm not going to tell you that you can't say something is real without ever observing said thing taking place, but i also don't claim my beliefs are scientific fact.>Observation is not impossible, but is limited to the fossil record and the speed at which we are able to make discoveries and test them.
Fossil record that has no record of evolutionary stages or transitional forms. So evolution cannot be observed in fossils either.>Religion, in comparison, has no proof whatsoever of being true.
There is a lot of evidence backing up the Bible's historicity if you are willing to look for it. I don't think you would take that as giving any validity to the spiritual portion of the Bible though.>None of it is empirical
Like gravity? Did you know that the movement of the stars and planets cannot work with gravity alone, so they had to creat a dark matter that can't be observed, but has to exist otherwise gravity doesn't work? Weird, huh? Science really like using theories about things were never observed and cannot be observed.