Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Cyberman]

Yeah, every day is Groundhog Day with rikky.

[Drich]

Science is the study of what we understand and can duplicate. true but science is also an excersice in faith. (theories based on theories based on evidence that may or may not support anything theorized to date.

The reason science and faith have been separated is because 'scientists' Simply WANT to feel more legit than those of "common faith in God." But in the end scientific origins like any YEC version of origins is a demonstration in the same core faith.

No, it is not. Religious faith is nothing of the kind, because science has supporting evidence, where religion does not.  And how is "common faith in god" legit?  Because it's common?  I know it makes you feel good to try to drag science down to the level of the blindly religious, but it doesn't work with thinking people.

Not all the time. at best in the case of evolution is that you have a narrative that explain mutation with in a species... here's another explanation the 'mutation is simply a extinct species or sub species. Meaning noting 'evolved. we just had a trillion more species and sub species and the fittest survived climate change and the rise of man.

[Crossless2.0]

At this late stage, I hadn't expected it, Drich, but you've outdone yourself again.

[I_am_not_mafia]

here's another explanation the 'mutation is simply a extinct species or sub species. Meaning noting 'evolved. we just had a trillion more species and sub species and the fittest survived climate change and the rise of man.

I recognise them as words but they don't mean anything in the order in which they are presented.

[Drich]

here's another explanation the 'mutation is simply a extinct species or sub species. Meaning noting 'evolved. we just had a trillion more species and sub species and the fittest survived climate change and the rise of man.

I recognise them as words but they don't mean anything in the order in which they are presented.

well then allow me explain as if I am speaking to a child.

 Evolution says: we evolved from a common ancestor and depending on time and mutation we evolve into different things based on enviroment.

Here is another explanation to the fossil record: Everything existed relatively all at once. and over time the climate changed in relitivly fast bursts, the better suited animals for the warmer or colder weather survived and the others did not. they died off in different the periods one mass extinction at a time(which is why we have a fossil record to begin with)

kinda works on the principles of Punctuated Equilibrium, but instead rapid evolution happening at points of mass and quick global climate change, the more natural thing happens... those not equip togo on simply die off. nobody goes through massive evolutionary change like from monkey to man or from whale to land dewelling animal back to whale.. that stupid if gave it 1/2 a second of thought... No the better suited animal simply climbed out of their afe spaces and took over, and because they took over they got to be bigger and stronger... (inter species evolution=the difference between a pocket begal and a walking hound.) those that could stand the new climate simply take their place atop the new food chain and became bigger versions of themselves.

This would explain why there are examples of fossiles outside of the times certain anmials were to have supposedly lived or why some fossils where found millions of years before those animals where to have developed.

Everything start roughly at the same time and the massive die off began everytime the climate changed.. This would also account for climate change now.

That's like 10 birds with the one stone I just threw.

---

At this late stage, I hadn't expected it, Drich, but you've outdone yourself again.

Just a little common sense and the wherewithal to tell conventional thinking it is wrong, and boom, your the next Darwin!

Well that and you have to have the sheople to follow enmass.

[Cyberman]

So how do we set about determining which, if either, is correct? Or is it whoever says it first?

[I_am_not_mafia]

 Evolution says: we evolved from a common ancestor and depending on time and mutation we evolve into different things based on enviroment.

Here is another explanation to the fossil record: Everything existed relatively all at once. and over time the climate changed in relitivly fast bursts, the better suited animals for the warmer or colder weather survived and the others did not. they died off in different the periods one mass extinction at a time(which is why we have a fossil record to begin with)

kinda works on the principles of Punctuated Equilibrium, but instead rapid evolution happening at points of mass and quick global climate change, the more natural thing happens... those not equip togo on simply die off. nobody goes through massive evolutionary change like from monkey to man or from whale to land dewelling animal back to whale.. that stupid if gave it 1/2 a second of thought... No the better suited animal simply climbed out of their afe spaces and took over, and because they took over they got to be bigger and stronger... (inter species evolution=the difference between a pocket begal and a walking hound.) those that could stand the new climate simply take their place atop the new food chain and became bigger versions of themselves.

This would explain why there are examples of fossiles outside of the times certain anmials were to have supposedly lived or why some fossils where found millions of years before those animals where to have developed.

Everything start roughly at the same time and the massive die off began everytime the climate changed.. This would also account for climate change now.

Except that we can use the process of evolution for practical purposes. We know that it works. We can observe it happening.

None of which can be said for your alternative hypothesis.

[Cyberman]

Time to dust this off, methinks:

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not to mention that we can observe evolutionary change throughout the fossil record. They are not disparate species dying off.

---

This would explain why there are examples of fossiles outside of the times certain anmials were to have supposedly lived or why some fossils where found millions of years before those animals where to have developed.

Citation required.

[Drich]

 Evolution says: we evolved from a common ancestor and depending on time and mutation we evolve into different things based on enviroment.

Here is another explanation to the fossil record: Everything existed relatively all at once. and over time the climate changed in relitivly fast bursts, the better suited animals for the warmer or colder weather survived and the others did not. they died off in different the periods one mass extinction at a time(which is why we have a fossil record to begin with)

kinda works on the principles of Punctuated Equilibrium, but instead rapid evolution happening at points of mass and quick global climate change, the more natural thing happens... those not equip togo on simply die off. nobody goes through massive evolutionary change like from monkey to man or from whale to land dewelling animal back to whale.. that stupid if gave it 1/2 a second of thought... No the better suited animal simply climbed out of their afe spaces and took over, and because they took over they got to be bigger and stronger... (inter species evolution=the difference between a pocket begal and a walking hound.) those that could stand the new climate simply take their place atop the new food chain and became bigger versions of themselves.

This would explain why there are examples of fossiles outside of the times certain anmials were to have supposedly lived or why some fossils where found millions of years before those animals where to have developed.

Everything start roughly at the same time and the massive die off began everytime the climate changed.. This would also account for climate change now.

Except that we can use the process of evolution for practical purposes. We know that it works. We can observe it happening.

None of which can be said for your alternative hypothesis.

holy crap mathilda, how can you guys be so miss informed about your corner stone theory on orgins/Your God killer?

The biggest flaw in evolution is that NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G Has EVER been documented Evolving into another species. like from one stable species who say lives in water then later dominates the land then goes back into the water (like the current theory o the blue whale) Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations. (like they may adapt to eating one trype of fruit or another, but in the end they remain 24 hour fruit flys. Nothing has ever been seen to change into anything else. That is the silver bullet to darwinism.

My hyopthsis is defined by nature it self. in that we see it every day. for example If i have a TROPICAL fish tank and have some colder water fish mixed in.. the cold water fish would migrate to the bottom and try and find cooler spots in the rock and caves. while the other topical fish dominate the rest of my 5000 gallon tank...Now let's say My tank heater goes out in the dead of winter and I am not home for an extended period.. what will happen to the topical fish? now ask yourself what happened to the real topical fish on a global scale same thing Mass extention (which is the only way there are some many fossils to find as everything ) like my dream tank the harder fish now take over... no body evolved there were simply a breed of fish who could take the cold and a breed who could not.

Or a breed of land animal who could an a breed who could not.

Face it you need darwinis because you killed God. therfore you have to explain where everything came from. saying "evolution did it is no different than saying God did it. However saying climate change is reducing the viable animals on the planet is something neither one of us can deny. and yet we have nothing evolving to survive this comming "water world."

---

Not to mention that we can observe evolutionary change throughout the fossil record. They are not disparate species dying off.

---

This would explain why there are examples of fossiles outside of the times certain anmials were to have supposedly lived or why some fossils where found millions of years before those animals where to have developed.

Citation required.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds...93848.html

So read the story... now let me hand hold you through it.

The whale on the hymilias found was 35 million years old. meaning what was found was an identifiable whale 35 million years old. NOW the next compareable thing is 5 million years younger and it is not a whale but what a whale was supposed to have morphed from. So if a whale morphes from this other 5 million yearold younger thing... then why do we have fully developed whales 5 MILLION YEARS before? Unless they simply lived side by side till the other thing that was almost a whale, simply crapped out or was breed out or fished out...

The bigger point? You did not know of one instance where a younger species was found to be older that it's predecessor... This is not an isolated thing... 

Here is an example of mammoths and dinosaurs bones being excavated from the same pit estimating the same time period..
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...in-russia/

But go head hold on to your 'god killing darwin bullet' and tell yourself this is all just fake news... look at the source "Asia/Russia" You can say it, i know some of you are thinking it "those people" will do anything for attention.