[michaelmrose]

Instead of throwing out the names of logical fallacies as if they applied to this argument please explain how this is a straw man?

[marshmallow_12]

You are projecting your own understanding of how and what religion is, and then attacking it. That is a straw man

[michaelmrose]

In what way do may statements and reality diverge? Be specific with quotes.

For example

> science does not have the tools to reproduce the beginning of the Universe. If it's not reproducible it's not Science.

What followed in this thread wasn't a discussion of religion. The post you are directly replying to directly dealt with the charge that it is impossible to scientifically examine the beginning on life on earth because it wasn't reproducible and ergo not science based on your misunderstanding what reproducible means.

If you look again up thread you will see that religion was discussed in a different part of the thread. Did you mean entirely different statements were strawmen? If so what and again please be specific.

I have myself been very specific in the arguments I refuted so you can do the same.

[gher-shyu3i]

Where you implied that all religions are anti-science by nature, and that their followers are not interested in finding out the real truth.

[tremon]

Again, be specific with quotes. No such statement was made. What was said:

People with preconceived anti science attitudes [..] went looking for the correct answer to satisfy their religion not a commitment to truth

This says "people", not "all religions". Moreover it says "people with [attribute]", which is a properly defined subset. If you take this statement to mean "all religions", it is you who is conflating "anti-science attitudes" with "all religious people", not the GP.