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.

[Joods]

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 hos intellectually dishonest Huggy is.

Careful... he'll start quote mining just to prove a point. He's well known for doing that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You guys proclaim that "science is self-correcting" as if it's a virtue... It's only a virtue to something that's unreliable.

Truth needs no self-correction, what is true will ALWAYS remain true.

I believe in the truth of the Bible hence why I requested an example of where science disproves it, so far no dice.

Says the person typing on a computer developed by science, in a house built by science, clothed by materials developed by science, probably alive today because of medical science, eating food as one of a population large enough that it relies on science to feed it etc. Yet while doing so calls science unreliable.

And while doing so believes in a myth disproved by science and rationalises this by cherry picking mutually exclusive explanations bastardised from scientific theories that he does not believe are true.

[Amarok]

This fucking chart is hilarious and wrong

---

Here is an actual simplified version of the evolution of cat like creatures





Different examples of feliformia

[I_am_not_mafia]

So I guess It's safe to say that no one has put forth any evidence that proves the flood wrong?

Huggy in a debate ...

Shall we move on? I believe next on Matilda's list was "a bat is not a bird".

You'll just say some shit like a bird is a generic term even though the Bible specifically refers to it as a bird and biologists know that birds have an entirely different evolutionary ancestry than bats.

Birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Bats are mammals.

In the same way you said:

"Kind" and "sort" are synonymous with "species" buddy.

So not only do your beliefs rely on cherry picking from scientific knowledge that you do not believe are true, quote mining, selecting between incompatible justifications as and when the situation calls for it, but they also rely on equivocation. And by that I mean using ambiguous definitions that no one else uses so you can contract or extend the meaning as you need to.

"Kind" and "sort" are terms with imprecise meaning that only creationists use. "Species" has a very definite and exact meaning. They are not synonyms, in the same way that a bird is more than just a small living flying thing.

[Succubus]

Succubus:

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.

It is indeed a thoroughly dishonest tactic, and a great favourite of woo meisters of all stripes. They cannot, not know their assertions will be looked in to, unless of course that's part of the game plan, to waste peoples time. I wonder do these people infest internet forums and post outrageous nonsense just to get a reaction?
The alternative is to depressing to contemplate, they do actually believe the oceans sea levels were once 29,000 foot higher than at present. Either way it doesn't really matter, the sad bastards are a great source of entertainment.

Not just that, we are forever educating ourselves by researching the bullshit claims. For example, I have in the past cut the legs right out from under the moon hoax crowd, all it took was a through reading of the wiki et,al, pages on the Apollo program. The numpties have (indirectly) learned me a great deal and for that I must thank them.

Huggy, Neo, Rik and the rest of you fucking idiots, keep it up lads, you're doing sterling work I tell you.

[Amarok]

Is huggie arguing bats and birds are the same species. Is he really arguing that a Mammal and a Avian  are a species .

[Whateverist]

Have you just shot yourself in the foot? I thought creationists refused to accept evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with creation.

Completely agree.  The one is demonstrable the other is fantasy.

Evolution is a fact in so much that each creature evolves after its "kind", cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, But the idea that we all evolved from some primordial soup is pure conjecture.

I'm okay with conjecture, and certainly evolution does fit the observable facts.  Creation does not rise to that level.  At best creation is the logical extension of a superstition based belief held to stubbornly in the face of cognitive dissonance arising from the disconnect with observable facts.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is huggie arguing bats and birds are the same species. Is he really arguing that a Mammal and a Avian  are a species .

Huggy walks into a KFC and asks for chicken.

Gets given fried rat.

Thinks:

"Meh, it's the same kind ..."

[Huggy Bear]

This is hilarious. So you accept the theory of evolution now?

Show me where I have denied evolution. I reject abiogenesis, not evolution... got it?

In which case also accept that evolutionary science has demonstrated the minimum viable population that I referred to earlier. There is not enough genetic diversity for a population of two cats to survive.

This is false.

Genetic diversity is a good thing, but it's not needed to survive, using dog breeding as an example, if one were to go about producing a new breed, they would inbreed to solidify the traits that they want, hence why many pure bred dogs have health problems, it doesn't mean they're not surviving.

Bull Terrier from 1915

Current picture of Bull Terrier

Your response to this is that there could have been more of each species yet when I point out that a wooden ship can only be a certain size your response is that you only need two of each species.

No, my response was there were wooden ships historically that were much bigger than the ark, so that kinda debunks your claim of a size limit (of at least 450ft, which coincidentally was the size of the ark) on wooden ships.

So which is it? Is Noah's ark demolished by science because of a lack of genetic diversity or because a wooden ship can't be built big enough?

For reasons I've already explained, neither.

Animals can survive with lack of genetic diversity AND ships can be built big enough.
See? no mutual exclusivity.

This is a clear example of you believing what you want to believe even if it means holding two mutually exclusive beliefs in your head at the same time.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.


So are we onto the birds/bats now?