Re: What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?


ishky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> harunyahya wrote:
> > What kind of relationship is there between creation and science ?
> >
> There is none.
>
> Creation or religion requires faith. Faith requires no evidence, study
> or proof. One just has to believe in the faith, no proof necessary.
>
> Science requires evidence, study and proof. It can be said that science
> is the opposite of religion.
>
> Andy

(I'm not having this nonsense.) You're a starry-eyed *get*, Andrew.
You know very well you're only talking in the theory, of how science
and religion are **SUPPOSED** to be. So they tell you, and you're
supposed to take it on faith. Get Real!! The reality is that Science
and religion show many parallels when you get practical about it. Each
are almost inside the other. Coming away with that poncy guff, you
might as well be in a pulpit yourself, molesting tongue-talking Willing
George (if that's any fun).

(Bloody "no proof necessary.." read 'plate tectonics')

Hey listen, ..have you nothing to say about ice/ glaciers/ sheets,
isostatic rebound, weather and mountain building, the global domains of
platforms and shields, perched erosion profiles, flat mountains, and
the rubbish of transforms and triple junctions and subduction zones
versus overriding, or the incremental rising of California (the most
GPS'd bit of the planet). I'll bet you can't even formulate one
question about plate tectonics, so much do you take it on faith!!

IN fact, I'll bet nobody can! Such a congregation of sheep y'all are,
knocking over the pews. Bahha hha Bhha. haa ha ha!

Pull the wool out of your eyes! (The religion of plate tectonics.
Just watch all the converts at the second coming.)

.

Quantcast