Atheism is a religion

[Blam!]

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 giraffes one mutation away from today’s height, but we don’t. Every species found is as it is today. 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.

Sorry to say, but you are wrong. Evolution has been observed, tested and demonstrated. Evolution demonstrated the bacteria's ability to adapt and resist against the old generation of antibiotics. If it wasn't for theory of evolution, then the new antibiotics won't be developed in first place.

You have too many misconceptions about:
-Transitional fossils [Yep. there is actual records.]
-Evolution link.
-Common ancestor.
-Radioisotope datings.
-Creationism [Heck no. It's not science, stupid.]


You just demonstrated your misconceptions and understandings of evolution. Please go and buy the simple, easy to understand evolution book. Later, go and research the evolution link of species, thoroughly. So I won't have to point out your misunderstandings of evolution, myself. You have internet, so please use it more effectively, dammit.

And don't try to discredit the theory of evolution with your baseless and unscientific claims, so you could believe your god.