Atheism is a religion

[Undeceived]

It is a "seems to me" argument, rather than an objective, scientific one. Evolution is not scientific. It is a belief system, period.

That was pathetic attempt to discredit the theory of evolution.

You obviously don't know how evolution works. Evolution is a tool to collect the data of objective into scientific methods, so they can observe, determine, understand and describe how the nature of objective works. Evolution is scientific because it operates on scientific methods with basis of data.

The definition of belief does not imply religion. According to the definition of religion, you'll need the belief system in the existence of deity, supernatural and spirituality.

I know enough about evolution to know it’s not science. It has not been observed, tested or demonstrated, which is the definition of science. There is no cause-effect evidence that organism A became organism B. Transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record, which doesn’t make sense because there should be hundreds that show the passage between birds and reptiles. We have thousands of dinosaur fossils, but not a single intermediary form in the 80 million year term they supposedly developed. In 80 million years, no dinosaur-bird became fossilized!—unless we haven’t discovered it, which is doubtful as we have plenty of ordinary dinosaurs from the Jurassic period. Where are the specimens with half scales and half feathers? Another problem with their evolution is that reptile lungs consist of millions of tiny air sacs. Birds’ lungs have tubes. Some evolutionists insist that Platypuses are a link between mammals and birds, but all Platypus fossils are exactly the same as modern forms. The structures of egg and milk glands are always fully developed and offer no solution as to the origin and development of the womb or milk glands. And more typical mammals are found in much lower strata than the egg-laying platypus. We should at least have variances of modern organisms, like human legs one mutation away from today’s shape, but we don’t. Every species found is as it is today, minus the microevolution changes (working with existing genetic info). Evolutionists continually say that humans did not evolve from apes: they have a common ancestor. But there is no evidence for this common ancestor because it is not in the fossil record. The “proof” evolution has is really only scientists’ inferences. When they point to analogous structures, all they know is that the organisms look alike. A wing and a fin have similar-looking bone structures? So what. That’s like saying my Toyota came from my Jeep because they both have 32 inch wheels.

I’m not bashing science. I’m saying that evolution isn’t science because it fails to use the scientific method: it isn’t observed, tested or demonstrated. All the data in the world won’t give evolution proof. You can throw scientific principles around anything, but that doesn’t mean one supports it directly. You could say there used to be a breed of lizard that jumped a hundred feet to the rainforest floor and use gravity to say it could travel downwards and the principle of air resistance to say that flaps of skin could keep it falling at a safe speed. But none of those show the lizard actually existed, just that it could have, given nature. Evolution is similar. There is no conclusive evidence, just hypotheses for how, using the materials we have, an animal could have come to be. Mutations happen, but we have no reason to believe they could drive progress. In fact, we have experiences to show they do the opposite. 99.99% of mutations are harmful—they are errors; mistakes! Instead, look at the scientific laws that contradict evolution. Spontaneous generation has been solemnly disproved (life from non-life). Conservation of mass says matter cannot be created or destroyed (Big Bang).

I know absolute dating will come up here, so let me address it. If you carbon-date life forms between the oldest rock layers, you get 6,000-10,000 years. Hypothetically, if the earth is young, carbon dating would be accurate. K-Ar dating would be dead wrong. In fact, if you date recent volcanic rocks with K-Ar they come out to millions to billions of years! Link:
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/K-Ar_datin...anic_rocks

Moreover, there shouldn’t be any carbon left in the old life forms (like dinosaurs) to begin with. It should have decayed to 0 atoms a hundred times over. But it remains, and happens to be in the exact quantity that corresponds to the Bible. Therefore, science supports creationism. Scientists choose the higher number on the preconceived assumption that the earth is old. They base this on evolution needing billions of years to occur. Clearly, that is circular logic. Picking the method that closest supports your theory (K-Ar over C-14) is not objective at all. And if it’s not objective, it’s not science.

And to your end statement, I agree. I said “belief system” in one of my earlier posts. I’m not responsible for the title of the thread.

Just what part of what I said was contrary to science's understanding of evolution? Don't appeal to authority or tell me "the evidence is out there." What evidence do you refer to? Explain evolution in your own words. Why do you believe it, apart from scientists telling you to?

However, we atheists listen to their peer-reviewed research (the act of peer reviewing effectively eliminates the 'appeal to authority' fallacy by using a particular scientific research or hypothosis paper to evidence a particular conclusion) because what it reveals about the reality in which we live is based in reality backed by things we find and not what a few scam artists refer to as 'revealed truth' i.e. appeal to authority or "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" sort of ridiculousness.

Peer-reviewed by who? Non-evolution believing scientists have their work peer-reviewed too, and make great cases for Intelligent Design. Who’s right? From what I’ve seen, science supports creationism. If anyone here thinks it doesn’t, point out which part and I’ll explain it away.