Atheism is a religion

[Blam!]

Yes, that is not dictionary.com's definition of science, but I'm using it in the sense of objective vs. subjective. Anything that has been observed, tested or demonstrated is, in that part, objective. If it has been none of the three (and I mean the driving forces of evolution), it is subjective. Evolution is subjective. Hypothesizing how life *could* have come to be is not the same as observing, testing or demonstrating how it really did.

Are you imply "subjective" is totally fake and unscientific? Guess what? The theory of gravity is also subjective. Go and jump from tallest building to prove if the theory is false. Theories are, indeed, the subjective, but it is back up with [objective] evidence. Creationism is not science, because there isn't any objective evidence to support the existence of god.

The fact remains, if the driving force of evolution is inferences, it is subjective and therefore not true science. And they have reasons for not wanting a God to exist, making their inferences less trustworthy.

The concept of science is also subjective, but with basis of objective. Go and learn how scientific methods works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovat...ethod6.htm

Can you prove the existence of your god through by scientific methods through by observation means? Oh, right. You frigging can't. Despite without scientific methods, The one claiming the existence of god is not scientific.

Evolution is trustworthy, because it actually operates on objective evidence, data and scientific methods - unlike creationism.

You mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution. It involves the dying off of unsuitable genes and therefore does not increase information in the genetic code. You need mutations to do that, and progression via mutations has not been demonstrated.

The theory of microevoultion has been demonstrated by bacteria's resistance of antibiotics. Check it out.

I wrote that as an analogy, to say that using principles like gravity and air resistance cannot prove the evolution, just as the possibility of mutations increasing genetic info is not proof without further evidence--and we know there are no (or a few questionable) documentations of mutations increasing genetic info. I am aware there are lizards that glide; I see them on Nature shows all the time.

There is documentations of live organisms being affected by changes of Earth's biodiversity eniviroment. Like this Peppered moth for example.

Then you agree that the catalyst of matter and energy was supernatural. If its outside of the universe, it is not natural, and is then by definition, supernatural.

"Goddidit" is a not scientific answer, I assure you.

The same goes for evolution. The presumption is that God doesn't exist. Scientists work to figure out how the universe could come to be and develop all by itself, without ever leaving the possibility of God open. Suppose you're a child playing with blocks in an empty room. As you mature you wonder, "Where did these blocks come from?" So you dream up all sorts of ways the blocks could have made themselves. They used to be the size of a pinhead, blew up into gases, which changed elements, began living, made up functions for each part to work together and grow, evolved into different types of things, and finally--you have blocks! What the child never realizes is that their parent put them there. Unless, of course, the parent were to walk in the room in person (like Jesus) and leave a textbook (the Bible) describing how the world really came to be.

Appeal to ignorance. Creationists have yet to provide the evidence of god, scientifically.