Atheism is a religion

[downbeatplumb]

I failed to find evidence beyond the wikipedia post for dinosaurs with feathers. All I found were quotes "with feathers" and a picture of the already determined Archaeopteryx hoax (true bird).
Some takes against thw wikipedia examples:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_..._2_09.html
http://www.icr.org/article/feathers-miss...-dinosaur/
That scientists feel they need to purposely mispresent evidence doesn't sit well. If you could provide a real source that would be great.

I have been to the natural history museum in London where they had a wing devoted to winged dinosaurs, I saw the fossils myself, will that do.

Creation science makes a fatal mistake: it's out to prove a particular outcome.

The same goes for evolution. The presumption is that God doesn't exist.

No it doesnt it, science just deals with what is it does not pre-suppose. but by showing how the world actually is it makes the god concept slightly more redundent.

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.

You have no idea wht the fuck you are talking about do you!

In their own journals, where they don't have to deal with those pesky 'real' scientists.

Oh, the irony. I've read books by widely acclaimed creation-scientists who explained how no evolution journal would let them publish. Can you imagine? Evolutionists claim creationists aren't reputable because they haven't appeared in an evolution journal, and then don't even let them in when they try! Neither side will let the other publish in their personal magazine... fancy that. There are, however, non-evolutionists who publish neutral articles in secular journals. But they don't call themselves creationists else they be excluded.
[/quote]

Now lets try this out creation scientists are being stifled by the scientific community or they are not actually doing science and the scientific journals are doing their job.

...it's merely bragging that you're close-minded on the subject.

On the contrary, it takes a broader mind to entertain possibilities of the supernatural. It would be easier to accept what secular scientists spoon-fed me, and I did that for years. I've been there and back. Try being a skeptic of your own side sometime--it'll make you stronger.

How braod minded are you?

Could Thor be real how about buddha Allah quetxelcoatl, Ra, Ganeshe?

I am pretty sure that you find the other gods not a viable option because you have picked one and its the right one eh!

Are you broad minded enough to consider the possibilty that there is no god?