Atheism is a religion

[downbeatplumb]

atheism is not religion it's a choice you make when you start to think logicly

Elitist crap.

My atheism was an inescapable conclusion,not a conscious choice.

Our most powerful beliefs (or lack of them) and our world view have little to do with reason or logic.

My atheism is my default position and I have seen no reason to move from that.

This whole argument over the how correct evolution is is totaly irrelevant. The premiss seems to be 'if evolution is wrong then god exists'
But i dont buy that, if evolution is wrong (which it isn't but bide with me) then this does not in any way prove god.

[Undeceived]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

Evolution hinges on mutations’ ability to increase genetic info—on the tendency for the smallest gases to evolve into other elements, become living things, and work together in complex organisms that accidentally become more complex. But not only has increasing genetic info never been observed, tested or demonstrated, its logic is questionable at best. To assume complexity should increase when all we’ve seen is destruction, entropy decreasing, and extinction is to ignore the evidence. ‘Hypothetically’ is not a science. Understanding this, you, the atheist, bypass evolution’s driving points and focus instead on the physical evidence: dating. Dating is based on assumption and therefore not reliable. If you assume the earth is old, you date with K-Ar and get billions of years; if you assume the earth is young, you date life forms with C-14 and get 6,000-10,000 years. Both are supported. Then you point to the fossil record. Well, without dating you have nothing but “it seems to me” arguments, observing strictly their looks and hypothesizing correlations. Scientist: "The whale pectoral fin and human hand look alike, so they must be related." ‘Hypothesizing’ is not objective science either. When a creationist points out the missing transitional fossils you inevitably reply, “We’re lucky to get the fossils we have now.” But holding onto a theory until you see a contradiction is exactly the fallacious thinking science is not supposed to operate by. No decisive evidence exists, yet evolution remains prominent as long as there are not multitudes of discrepancies. Lack of evidence should inspire action—one must be skeptic before accepting, not after. One should not believe a theory in spite of deficient evidence. If one wishes to be objective, one should wait until the evidence is filled. A true scientist should entertain all possible alternatives including, yes, young earth theory, which is also supported by dating. To assume, it is said, is to make an ass out of science—you can pin whatever you like on it.

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist. If we cannot see, touch or hear Him this assumption must be made--even though it is directly within God's nature not to be seen, touch or heard. Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made. This is built on the first assumption, rendering it unreliable. Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating. Since evolution requires many many years (concluded by our inability to witness it in the last 500 years), scientists take on the assumption that the earth must be old. Consequently, they date with a technique designed for older dates. Since evolution is assumed before dating, dating cannot be used to support evolution or it would be a circular argument. Therefore a fossil tree with dates has no evidence at all. Without proper dating, you cannot put one organism definitively before another.

Let’s dig into the tendency of mutations. By definition, they are errors in copying genetic code. Mistakes most often bring disorder. They are easily 99.99% harmful or neutral, as evidenced by scientists' continued failure to introduce beneficial ones in labs. The possibility of receiving a helpful mutation is there, but the chance of the same organisms being wiped out by a harmful mutation is much greater. An analogy: Say you won a million dollar lottery. You then stake all your winnings as well as your life savings on one game of blackjack. The odds are always in favor of the house, so chances are you'll lose everything. You may survive the gamble, but probability says the next dozen lottery winners attempting the same feat won't be so lucky. Multiply this by billions of years, and time is not your friend. Time is evolution's enemy. Evolution is based on mutations’ ability to increase complexity, which has not been proven or even witnessed. If the core element of a theory has no backing, your theory is subjective. Therefore evolution does not abide by the scientific method, as much as you would like it to.

I described earlier how difficult gradual evolution can be. The giraffe was my example. A giraffe neck has to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutations to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), for a stronger heart, and to make thicker blood vessels arrive. And this has to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually becomes longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Evolutionists like Dawkins explain this by saying mutated genes could stay dormant until the cooperating genes come along. But the clear rebuttal to this is theory is the fact that we see no dormant genes today. Look at a genetic code for any living organism, and there are no hundreds or thousands of dormant mutated genes waiting in the wings. Not only that, if one accidentally emerged, natural selection would extinguish it immediately. Why keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.
By increasing complexity, I mean never-existing-before genetic info. Scientists have tested on mice, but all they get is old info--an extra eye, bent up arm, misplaced ear. What evolution needs is who new tissues. One mutation is not enough. You need a series of improbably beneficial mutations that build on one another (dormant mutations which should not stick around) in order to get a new tissue. Otherwise, you may get a leg out of the forehead, but that’s on old leg you already had the genetic information for—not new, more complex information. The only alternative to the clear backward trend is for every single mutation to have a function, in turn, that keeps benefiting organisms alive while all other organisms die. That’s a leap of faith. To say every one of the hundred mutations helped an organism survive along the path of ninety cataclysmic disasters borders on sheer fantasy. When we see a species go extinct, it goes extinct—no straggling members with just the right mutation for the event. And once again, there are no fossils to document this. There are no eyes even close to the human eye. Several pieces inside the eye are completely dependent on one another, and there is no reason to suspect they once had been otherwise. The arrival of new tissues is vital to evolution, yet we have no documented accounts of it happening. Take the transition from fish to land animal. To develop lungs, the organism would need information it would not have. It's like growing an iron bar off my arm. There may be iron in my system, but that doesn't mean it can arrange into a functional organ. Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real. Where is a fish going to get lung tissue and have the random mutation at the exact right moment for it to become part of their DNA so they can pass it on? If you jabbed an iron bar in my arm, how likely is it that it will fuse to my body and my daughter will have the very same chunk of metal when she's born? Evidence is not in favor of evolution. In fact, logical interpretation of the evidence is against it. Yet scientists believe anyway. Why? Because they don’t want accountability, meaning, or a God in the universe. In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

Conclusion: There are a lot of strong theories in science, but evolution isn’t one of them.
Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

[Anomalocaris]

You are full of shit, and appearently nothing else. Don't insult science by letting the word pass your foul bible addled mouth.

[Whateverist]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

That is exceedingly kind and condescending of you to break it down for us. Who knew that scientists were part of a vast conspiracy to discredit god almighty. Hallelujah!

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist.

Science does not concern itself with whether your or any other god exists. Science is concerned with natural phenomena and so its theories do not involve unnatural phenomena. If any of your gods ever do show up for science to examine, they will no longer be supernatural. Until then, science and we will leave gods to you. I'm sorry if you feel left out by science but it isn't personal, just definitional. If you want theories about the what isn't part of the natural world you will only find them in pseudo sciences such as creationism and that sort of thing.

Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made.

So you're saying we're on the clock here? Science must either explain in fine detail exactly how the world/universe has come to be, or else concede that god did it? Um, no.

Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating.

Real science does not set out to prove anything, in the sense of "establish" or "show to be so". I'm sure there are scientists who do have agendas which they serve rather than seeking the truth -all creation 'scientists' for example. There will always be some in any profession who are unethical or incompetent, and I'm sure that is even true of scientists who are not creationists. That doesn't say anything about science itself, but merely the failings of some individuals.

Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.

Science is an empirical enterprise concerned with a posteriori, not a priori, knowledge. Those who sit around thinking about logical necessity and attempting to show what follows from given premises are logicians, not scientists. Of course, an understanding of logic is necessary to formulate useful hypotheses to test. But science does not decide its theories based on logic, but rather on what explanations best fit the know data.

Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real.

And other scientists are fine with not knowing a thing until we do. There are unanswered questions. Given. Does that mean we need "god did it" in the mean time? No. You might but we don't.

In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

That may be but it is a completely separate matter. Some scientists and/or atheists may have a bent toward "meaningless" others don't. What of it?

Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

Bite me. Not your call.

[Blam!]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

---

Evolution hinges on mutations’ ability to increase genetic info—on the tendency for the smallest gases to evolve into other elements, become living things, and work together in complex organisms that accidentally become more complex. But not only has increasing genetic info never been observed, tested or demonstrated, its logic is questionable at best. To assume complexity should increase when all we’ve seen is destruction, entropy decreasing, and extinction is to ignore the evidence.

---

‘Hypothetically’ is not a science. Understanding this, you, the atheist, bypass evolution’s driving points and focus instead on the physical evidence: dating. Dating is based on assumption and therefore not reliable. If you assume the earth is old, you date with K-Ar and get billions of years; if you assume the earth is young, you date life forms with C-14 and get 6,000-10,000 years. Both are supported.

---

Then you point to the fossil record. Well, without dating you have nothing but “it seems to me” arguments, observing strictly their looks and hypothesizing correlations. Scientist: "The whale pectoral fin and human hand look alike, so they must be related." ‘Hypothesizing’ is not objective science either. When a creationist points out the missing transitional fossils you inevitably reply, “We’re lucky to get the fossils we have now.” But holding onto a theory until you see a contradiction is exactly the fallacious thinking science is not supposed to operate by. No decisive evidence exists, yet evolution remains prominent as long as there are not multitudes of discrepancies. Lack of evidence should inspire action—one must be skeptic before accepting, not after. One should not believe a theory in spite of deficient evidence. If one wishes to be objective, one should wait until the evidence is filled. A true scientist should entertain all possible alternatives including, yes, young earth theory, which is also supported by dating. To assume, it is said, is to make an ass out of science—you can pin whatever you like on it.

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist. If we cannot see, touch or hear Him this assumption must be made--even though it is directly within God's nature not to be seen, touch or heard. Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made. This is built on the first assumption, rendering it unreliable. Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating. Since evolution requires many many years (concluded by our inability to witness it in the last 500 years), scientists take on the assumption that the earth must be old. Consequently, they date with a technique designed for older dates. Since evolution is assumed before dating, dating cannot be used to support evolution or it would be a circular argument. Therefore a fossil tree with dates has no evidence at all. Without proper dating, you cannot put one organism definitively before another.

Let’s dig into the tendency of mutations. By definition, they are errors in copying genetic code. Mistakes most often bring disorder. They are easily 99.99% harmful or neutral, as evidenced by scientists' continued failure to introduce beneficial ones in labs. The possibility of receiving a helpful mutation is there, but the chance of the same organisms being wiped out by a harmful mutation is much greater. An analogy: Say you won a million dollar lottery. You then stake all your winnings as well as your life savings on one game of blackjack. The odds are always in favor of the house, so chances are you'll lose everything. You may survive the gamble, but probability says the next dozen lottery winners attempting the same feat won't be so lucky. Multiply this by billions of years, and time is not your friend. Time is evolution's enemy. Evolution is based on mutations’ ability to increase complexity, which has not been proven or even witnessed. If the core element of a theory has no backing, your theory is subjective. Therefore evolution does not abide by the scientific method, as much as you would like it to.

I described earlier how difficult gradual evolution can be. The giraffe was my example. A giraffe neck has to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutations to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), for a stronger heart, and to make thicker blood vessels arrive. And this has to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually becomes longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Evolutionists like Dawkins explain this by saying mutated genes could stay dormant until the cooperating genes come along. But the clear rebuttal to this is theory is the fact that we see no dormant genes today. Look at a genetic code for any living organism, and there are no hundreds or thousands of dormant mutated genes waiting in the wings. Not only that, if one accidentally emerged, natural selection would extinguish it immediately. Why keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.
By increasing complexity, I mean never-existing-before genetic info. Scientists have tested on mice, but all they get is old info--an extra eye, bent up arm, misplaced ear. What evolution needs is who new tissues. One mutation is not enough. You need a series of improbably beneficial mutations that build on one another (dormant mutations which should not stick around) in order to get a new tissue. Otherwise, you may get a leg out of the forehead, but that’s on old leg you already had the genetic information for—not new, more complex information. The only alternative to the clear backward trend is for every single mutation to have a function, in turn, that keeps benefiting organisms alive while all other organisms die. That’s a leap of faith. To say every one of the hundred mutations helped an organism survive along the path of ninety cataclysmic disasters borders on sheer fantasy. When we see a species go extinct, it goes extinct—no straggling members with just the right mutation for the event. And once again, there are no fossils to document this. There are no eyes even close to the human eye. Several pieces inside the eye are completely dependent on one another, and there is no reason to suspect they once had been otherwise. The arrival of new tissues is vital to evolution, yet we have no documented accounts of it happening. Take the transition from fish to land animal. To develop lungs, the organism would need information it would not have. It's like growing an iron bar off my arm. There may be iron in my system, but that doesn't mean it can arrange into a functional organ. Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real. Where is a fish going to get lung tissue and have the random mutation at the exact right moment for it to become part of their DNA so they can pass it on? If you jabbed an iron bar in my arm, how likely is it that it will fuse to my body and my daughter will have the very same chunk of metal when she's born? Evidence is not in favor of evolution. In fact, logical interpretation of the evidence is against it. Yet scientists believe anyway. Why? Because they don’t want accountability, meaning, or a God in the universe. In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

Conclusion: There are a lot of strong theories in science, but evolution isn’t one of them.
Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

---

Of course, hypothesis itself isn't enough unless not analyzed through by scientific methods. However, evolution has been demonstrated through by scientific method means. And you can't discredit the science by pointing out the refutable flaws. If the errors are refutable, then it can be refuted. The errors of radioactive dating has been refuted and they still point the age of Earth to 4.54 billion years. The fossils through by many types of radioactive datings, they show the similar results. Your claims of confirmation bias in the science are pointless, because the science is refutable and thus without bias.

Really, this is getting nowhere and you have yet to provide the evidence of your own god. You claimed the creationism as a science despite the lack of evidence to support the existence of your god. Creationists are obviously biased liars, because they attributed and favored their god into science without evidence.

checkmate, Undeceived.

[Undeceived]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

---

Evolution hinges on mutations’ ability to increase genetic info—on the tendency for the smallest gases to evolve into other elements, become living things, and work together in complex organisms that accidentally become more complex. But not only has increasing genetic info never been observed, tested or demonstrated, its logic is questionable at best. To assume complexity should increase when all we’ve seen is destruction, entropy decreasing, and extinction is to ignore the evidence.

---

‘Hypothetically’ is not a science. Understanding this, you, the atheist, bypass evolution’s driving points and focus instead on the physical evidence: dating. Dating is based on assumption and therefore not reliable. If you assume the earth is old, you date with K-Ar and get billions of years; if you assume the earth is young, you date life forms with C-14 and get 6,000-10,000 years. Both are supported.

---

Then you point to the fossil record. Well, without dating you have nothing but “it seems to me” arguments, observing strictly their looks and hypothesizing correlations. Scientist: "The whale pectoral fin and human hand look alike, so they must be related." ‘Hypothesizing’ is not objective science either. When a creationist points out the missing transitional fossils you inevitably reply, “We’re lucky to get the fossils we have now.” But holding onto a theory until you see a contradiction is exactly the fallacious thinking science is not supposed to operate by. No decisive evidence exists, yet evolution remains prominent as long as there are not multitudes of discrepancies. Lack of evidence should inspire action—one must be skeptic before accepting, not after. One should not believe a theory in spite of deficient evidence. If one wishes to be objective, one should wait until the evidence is filled. A true scientist should entertain all possible alternatives including, yes, young earth theory, which is also supported by dating. To assume, it is said, is to make an ass out of science—you can pin whatever you like on it.

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist. If we cannot see, touch or hear Him this assumption must be made--even though it is directly within God's nature not to be seen, touch or heard. Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made. This is built on the first assumption, rendering it unreliable. Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating. Since evolution requires many many years (concluded by our inability to witness it in the last 500 years), scientists take on the assumption that the earth must be old. Consequently, they date with a technique designed for older dates. Since evolution is assumed before dating, dating cannot be used to support evolution or it would be a circular argument. Therefore a fossil tree with dates has no evidence at all. Without proper dating, you cannot put one organism definitively before another.

Let’s dig into the tendency of mutations. By definition, they are errors in copying genetic code. Mistakes most often bring disorder. They are easily 99.99% harmful or neutral, as evidenced by scientists' continued failure to introduce beneficial ones in labs. The possibility of receiving a helpful mutation is there, but the chance of the same organisms being wiped out by a harmful mutation is much greater. An analogy: Say you won a million dollar lottery. You then stake all your winnings as well as your life savings on one game of blackjack. The odds are always in favor of the house, so chances are you'll lose everything. You may survive the gamble, but probability says the next dozen lottery winners attempting the same feat won't be so lucky. Multiply this by billions of years, and time is not your friend. Time is evolution's enemy. Evolution is based on mutations’ ability to increase complexity, which has not been proven or even witnessed. If the core element of a theory has no backing, your theory is subjective. Therefore evolution does not abide by the scientific method, as much as you would like it to.

I described earlier how difficult gradual evolution can be. The giraffe was my example. A giraffe neck has to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutations to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), for a stronger heart, and to make thicker blood vessels arrive. And this has to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually becomes longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Evolutionists like Dawkins explain this by saying mutated genes could stay dormant until the cooperating genes come along. But the clear rebuttal to this is theory is the fact that we see no dormant genes today. Look at a genetic code for any living organism, and there are no hundreds or thousands of dormant mutated genes waiting in the wings. Not only that, if one accidentally emerged, natural selection would extinguish it immediately. Why keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.
By increasing complexity, I mean never-existing-before genetic info. Scientists have tested on mice, but all they get is old info--an extra eye, bent up arm, misplaced ear. What evolution needs is who new tissues. One mutation is not enough. You need a series of improbably beneficial mutations that build on one another (dormant mutations which should not stick around) in order to get a new tissue. Otherwise, you may get a leg out of the forehead, but that’s on old leg you already had the genetic information for—not new, more complex information. The only alternative to the clear backward trend is for every single mutation to have a function, in turn, that keeps benefiting organisms alive while all other organisms die. That’s a leap of faith. To say every one of the hundred mutations helped an organism survive along the path of ninety cataclysmic disasters borders on sheer fantasy. When we see a species go extinct, it goes extinct—no straggling members with just the right mutation for the event. And once again, there are no fossils to document this. There are no eyes even close to the human eye. Several pieces inside the eye are completely dependent on one another, and there is no reason to suspect they once had been otherwise. The arrival of new tissues is vital to evolution, yet we have no documented accounts of it happening. Take the transition from fish to land animal. To develop lungs, the organism would need information it would not have. It's like growing an iron bar off my arm. There may be iron in my system, but that doesn't mean it can arrange into a functional organ. Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real. Where is a fish going to get lung tissue and have the random mutation at the exact right moment for it to become part of their DNA so they can pass it on? If you jabbed an iron bar in my arm, how likely is it that it will fuse to my body and my daughter will have the very same chunk of metal when she's born? Evidence is not in favor of evolution. In fact, logical interpretation of the evidence is against it. Yet scientists believe anyway. Why? Because they don’t want accountability, meaning, or a God in the universe. In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

Conclusion: There are a lot of strong theories in science, but evolution isn’t one of them.
Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

---

Of course, hypothesis itself isn't enough unless not analyzed through by scientific methods. However, evolution has been demonstrated through by scientific method means. And you can't discredit the science by pointing out the refutable flaws. If the errors are refutable, then it can be refuted. The errors of radioactive dating has been refuted and they still point the age of Earth to 4.54 billion years. The fossils through by many types of radioactive datings, they show the similar results. Your claims of confirmation bias in the science are pointless, because the science is refutable and thus without bias.

Really, this is getting nowhere and you have yet to provide the evidence of your own god. You claimed the creationism as a science despite the lack of evidence to support the existence of your god. Creationists are obviously biased liars, because they attributed and favored their god into science without evidence.

checkmate, Undeceived.

I probably wasn't clear. ALL old-age dating techniques would be wrong if the earth turns out to be young. You must know a ballpark age before you choose a technique. Scientists rightly say C-14 dating is inaccurate or unusable for objects over 80,000 years. So too are the methods Rb-Sr, K-Ar, U-Pb ect. inaccurate or unusable for objects under 80,000 years. We know this because we have tested K-Ar and others on rocks we know to be 200~ years old. The results came out to millions or billions of years. Page down to Table 1 in this link:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._Earth.htm
Science can't refute itself on topics it isn't sure about. Dating with our current knowledge is like trying to figure out how a sextant works. You may try a hundred different brands of sextant, fifty different types, but if you don't know which side is up you might as well not be using one at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your if is showing.

Next time you ask someone to avoid posting without having "scientific refutations" I'm going to be right there to remind you that you need to put science in your post in the first place, before anyone needs to do any "scientific refuting".

[Blam!]

I probably wasn't clear. ALL old-age dating techniques would be wrong if the earth turns out to be young. You must know a ballpark age before you choose a technique. Scientists rightly say C-14 dating is inaccurate or unusable for objects over 80,000 years. So too are the methods Rb-Sr, K-Ar, U-Pb ect. inaccurate or unusable for objects under 80,000 years. We know this because we have tested K-Ar and others on rocks we know to be 200~ years old. The results came out to millions or billions of years. Page down to Table 1 in this link:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._Earth.htm
Science can't refute itself on topics it isn't sure about. Dating with our current knowledge is like trying to figure out how a sextant works. You may try a hundred different brands of sextant, fifty different types, but if you don't know which side is up you might as well not be using one at all.

The time of radioactive decay has been determined by half-life formula. The half-life of radioactive decay is refutable, because there is radioactive elements available to be analyzed. Although radioactive dating may have the margin of error, but the radioactive dating of fossils in same region can be combined [arithmetic mean] together to get more accurate date.

Math doesn't lie, Undeceived.

[genkaus]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

Evolution hinges on mutations’ ability to increase genetic info—on the tendency for the smallest gases to evolve into other elements, become living things, and work together in complex organisms that accidentally become more complex. But not only has increasing genetic info never been observed, tested or demonstrated, its logic is questionable at best. To assume complexity should increase when all we’ve seen is destruction, entropy decreasing, and extinction is to ignore the evidence. ‘Hypothetically’ is not a science. Understanding this, you, the atheist, bypass evolution’s driving points and focus instead on the physical evidence: dating. Dating is based on assumption and therefore not reliable. If you assume the earth is old, you date with K-Ar and get billions of years; if you assume the earth is young, you date life forms with C-14 and get 6,000-10,000 years. Both are supported. Then you point to the fossil record. Well, without dating you have nothing but “it seems to me” arguments, observing strictly their looks and hypothesizing correlations. Scientist: "The whale pectoral fin and human hand look alike, so they must be related." ‘Hypothesizing’ is not objective science either. When a creationist points out the missing transitional fossils you inevitably reply, “We’re lucky to get the fossils we have now.” But holding onto a theory until you see a contradiction is exactly the fallacious thinking science is not supposed to operate by. No decisive evidence exists, yet evolution remains prominent as long as there are not multitudes of discrepancies. Lack of evidence should inspire action—one must be skeptic before accepting, not after. One should not believe a theory in spite of deficient evidence. If one wishes to be objective, one should wait until the evidence is filled. A true scientist should entertain all possible alternatives including, yes, young earth theory, which is also supported by dating. To assume, it is said, is to make an ass out of science—you can pin whatever you like on it.

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist. If we cannot see, touch or hear Him this assumption must be made--even though it is directly within God's nature not to be seen, touch or heard. Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made. This is built on the first assumption, rendering it unreliable. Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating. Since evolution requires many many years (concluded by our inability to witness it in the last 500 years), scientists take on the assumption that the earth must be old. Consequently, they date with a technique designed for older dates. Since evolution is assumed before dating, dating cannot be used to support evolution or it would be a circular argument. Therefore a fossil tree with dates has no evidence at all. Without proper dating, you cannot put one organism definitively before another.

Let’s dig into the tendency of mutations. By definition, they are errors in copying genetic code. Mistakes most often bring disorder. They are easily 99.99% harmful or neutral, as evidenced by scientists' continued failure to introduce beneficial ones in labs. The possibility of receiving a helpful mutation is there, but the chance of the same organisms being wiped out by a harmful mutation is much greater. An analogy: Say you won a million dollar lottery. You then stake all your winnings as well as your life savings on one game of blackjack. The odds are always in favor of the house, so chances are you'll lose everything. You may survive the gamble, but probability says the next dozen lottery winners attempting the same feat won't be so lucky. Multiply this by billions of years, and time is not your friend. Time is evolution's enemy. Evolution is based on mutations’ ability to increase complexity, which has not been proven or even witnessed. If the core element of a theory has no backing, your theory is subjective. Therefore evolution does not abide by the scientific method, as much as you would like it to.

I described earlier how difficult gradual evolution can be. The giraffe was my example. A giraffe neck has to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutations to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), for a stronger heart, and to make thicker blood vessels arrive. And this has to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually becomes longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Evolutionists like Dawkins explain this by saying mutated genes could stay dormant until the cooperating genes come along. But the clear rebuttal to this is theory is the fact that we see no dormant genes today. Look at a genetic code for any living organism, and there are no hundreds or thousands of dormant mutated genes waiting in the wings. Not only that, if one accidentally emerged, natural selection would extinguish it immediately. Why keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.
By increasing complexity, I mean never-existing-before genetic info. Scientists have tested on mice, but all they get is old info--an extra eye, bent up arm, misplaced ear. What evolution needs is who new tissues. One mutation is not enough. You need a series of improbably beneficial mutations that build on one another (dormant mutations which should not stick around) in order to get a new tissue. Otherwise, you may get a leg out of the forehead, but that’s on old leg you already had the genetic information for—not new, more complex information. The only alternative to the clear backward trend is for every single mutation to have a function, in turn, that keeps benefiting organisms alive while all other organisms die. That’s a leap of faith. To say every one of the hundred mutations helped an organism survive along the path of ninety cataclysmic disasters borders on sheer fantasy. When we see a species go extinct, it goes extinct—no straggling members with just the right mutation for the event. And once again, there are no fossils to document this. There are no eyes even close to the human eye. Several pieces inside the eye are completely dependent on one another, and there is no reason to suspect they once had been otherwise. The arrival of new tissues is vital to evolution, yet we have no documented accounts of it happening. Take the transition from fish to land animal. To develop lungs, the organism would need information it would not have. It's like growing an iron bar off my arm. There may be iron in my system, but that doesn't mean it can arrange into a functional organ. Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real. Where is a fish going to get lung tissue and have the random mutation at the exact right moment for it to become part of their DNA so they can pass it on? If you jabbed an iron bar in my arm, how likely is it that it will fuse to my body and my daughter will have the very same chunk of metal when she's born? Evidence is not in favor of evolution. In fact, logical interpretation of the evidence is against it. Yet scientists believe anyway. Why? Because they don’t want accountability, meaning, or a God in the universe. In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

Conclusion: There are a lot of strong theories in science, but evolution isn’t one of them.
Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

I'll try to be brief since I know that you won't even try to understand most of this.

1. Increase in information has been observed and we have found transitional fossils. We were lucky to find as many as we did, but t hey have been found. What's more, these things have been pointed out to you before and still you continue to ignore them. That makes you a liar.

2. Hypothesizing is the first step of the scientific method.

3. Young earth is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

4. Science does not discard anything that cannot be seen, touch or heard. Dark matter cannot be and still it is a crucial part of cosmology.

5. Mutations are changes in copying genetic code, not errors. Your definition is wrong. Further, most of the mutations are neutral, not harmful. And no, a harmful mutation need not cause the creature to automatically die out either. If that was true, no harmful mutation would be passed on to progeny, which it is.

[Phil]

Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

Who the fuck do you think you are to dictate to anyone how we should respond to your Christoholic bullshit? Tell you what though, if you want scientific refutations of anything try to post scientific claims not Dr. Dino stupidity.