Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Fake Messiah]

Not to mention the second article debunks the idea that the mountains rose quickly at all, never mind the fact that the article states that they were the same height 14 million years ago that they are at presently. Did they stop growing all of the sudden 14 million years ago?  
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...131817.htm

Dr Evenstar said: "It seems highly likely that the Andes have gone up slowly over at least the last 30 million years, and are the result of gradual thickening of the crust.

L. A. Evenstar is just making rise more precise and also Andes are pretty long chain and it didn't all grow at the same time. Here's her whole explanation:

The Atacama Desert on the western margin of the Central Andes is one of the driest and oldest deserts in the world. It is defined by a distinct and ancient surface, known as the Pacific Paleosurface (PPS) or Atacama Paleosurface. The age of this surface is determined as the time at which sediment deposition ceased, and the surface was effectively abandoned. Early studies suggested that this abandonment took place between 14 and 10 Ma, and was related to both the uplift of the Andes and the onset of hyperaridity in the region. Here we provide a regional re-examination of the PPS, compiling existing work on the underlying geology, sedimentology, surface exposure dating, and seismic profiling. We also present new multispectral satellite maps of the PPS and 45 new cosmogenic 3He and 21Ne surface exposure ages in order to constrain the formation age, and the preservation and incision history of the paleosurface. We conclude that the PPS is not a single paleosurface, but instead is a mosaic of smaller surfaces that were formed by aggradational and degradational processes over 19 million years (or more) and should be termed collectively as the Pacific Paleosurfaces. The time at which individual paleosurfaces formed is related to regional climate, where the location of each is controlled by regional tectonic activity. Cosmogenic surface exposure ages suggest that the surfaces are a record of regional scale climate events.

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/...bac2).html

This shows that all that was required on the ark was two cats, not EVERY species of cat that existed, so that reduces the number of animals required significantly

No it doesn't. You still need more cats. I mean you can do the experiment yourself by getting two cats whose progeny will reproduce only by itself and then their progeny and so on and you'll see that it fails.