<p>Reasoning using the Rynor Method:
If science is proven and religion is proven to a certain extent then there is no way one can disprove the other. You’d have to simultaneously prove both one is correct while disproving the other one at the same time. This is impossible. If something is impossible it means it cannot happen if it cannot happen it cannot be used to disprove or prove anything. Thus using the Rynor Method there cannot be one winner and one loser, but two winners or two losers.</p>
<p>If you have not realized by now my post is as ridiculous and as futile as arguing science vs. religion. :)</p>
<p>I expect only the rationalists remain. A command of end thread has been scribed by a random, unnamed source, so naturally the religious among us are following these orders.</p>
<p>I think everyone here agrees that they aren’t mutually exclusive. At first we were arguing religion(atheism) vs religion(theism). Then we were arguing science(evolution) vs science(creation).</p>
<p>Now we’re pretty much just amusing ourselves with epistemological ramblings.</p>
<p>^^^ Who’s mifune?!? He’s the die-hard Atheist Evolutionist who posted huge walls of text when debating me and others. He’s been on vacation, and is due back any time now.</p>