Science is based on making understandings of things, which is done to establish fact(s), as reviewed, repeated, and witnessed by peers, and/or others.
Religion is based on a set of written texts made long ago about events they claim happened longer before that.
Religious texts have many problems including but not limited to:
Contradictions related to an event, that has two or more offers of facts, which are mutually exclusive, proving them wrong.
Offers to act as God directs in scriptures, that need no additional context, that implores people to perpetrate various atrocities.
Offers to kill others who reject their faith.
Offers that people deserve to die and must accept their faith.
Offers that their creed and texts are perfect true and correct.
The creeds and claims are not mutable, or revisable. Acts to murder others, en masse even, have occurred throughout all of their history, and are done so founded upon notions of authority to punish those who reject, do blasphemy, and heresy, and the errant accusations that come with.
Offers of specious logic, false correlations, sophistry, occult, numerology, and appeals to emotion, based on depictions of horrid violence.
etc.
Science is mutable, and any and all conclusions are subject to integrating new knowledge within them, or rejecting old views or conclusions proven false.
Religion does not allow this. You remain in the dark.
In order to defend a faith, those in doing so, hope to attack science and label it a creed.
That fails for many reasons.
It in effect discards learning and wisdom, and hopes to support the wrongs in the creed by attacking others who might reject it.
That is not proof of being right, or a valid rebut, but in fact proves theists wrong.
Some argue as they claim to be scientists, some of whom can also be theists, or any other things, that scientists make foolish and wordy claims, as do atheists, and you can concede that point of view in some cases.
Akin to saying they engage in arguments with obtuse reasoning and justificataions via nihilism, null hypotheses, et al, which gets to look like efforts to boil a kettle of water with an atomic bomb.
People make mistakes, Occam's Razor wins, go with what you know and can prove.
Solve it.
And people are people.
This is from a post I saw earlier:
There is only one type of science.
I'll just repeat a comment I dropped on a theist fraud a while back:
Socrates is the originator of the system which begins by assuming nothing, and examining everything.
Thales of Miletus demonstrated that worthwhile knowledge can be gleaned from the study of accumulated data.
These are the basis for all the success of science which your cult failed to produce, for all the period of its supremacy.
Creationism is a cult fantasy based on the ignorant ramblings of ancient dimwits.
"And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky." [Genesis 1:6-8a]
Where is this cosmic ocean of liquid water, and the buttressing dome called "sky"?
Then your book of stupid lies claims the stars are tiny lights inside that dome, proving that the authors knew absolutely nothing about reality. The stars are gigantic suns at immense distances, not tiny lights suspended from a dome...
You know nothing of science ________ !
Be silent. You cannot pray reality away...
