Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

*emphasis mine*
The "violent upthrusting" of the Andes in the first article was clearly posited to reconcile with whale fossils being found on these mountains.

"Hey these whale fossils on top of these mountains must mean that the mountains rose up from the sea floor really really fast..."

How is that science?

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.

Yes this is entirely what science is about. Collecting data and evidence. Sometimes they do not seem to agree at first, but if you collect enough data then you start to get a better picture of what happened. If the evidence does not agree with each other then you continue investigating and an evidence based theory emerges that explains why. Or we find out why some evidence appears wrong and refine our methods.

This is an example of how science is different from religion because it refines itself over time. Religious people think that they can just point to evidence that does not yet agree with the current theory and insert another explanation without realising that it has to account for all the evidence. Religious belief does not refine itself over time. It cherry picks.
.

---

You should have read on a bit.

So twice now Huggy has posted articles that seem to support his argument at first glance but not if you read them properly. This shows how intellectually dishonest Huggy is.