Atheism is a religion

[Mister Agenda]

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.

From Merriam:

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

The dictionary's definition of science doesn't match yours.

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.

All fossils are either transitional forms or the last example of their kind before extinction. Paleontologists disagree with you about how many of what type of fossil there should be. Fossilization is a rare event, only a tiny fraction of organisms have been preserved as fossils.

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?

You might want to bother googling before making such sweeping claims. You're about 20 years out-of-date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

Another problem with their evolution is that reptile lungs consist of millions of tiny air sacs.

Good thing birds evolved from dinosaurs instead of reptiles, then. Mammals evolved from reptiles.

Birds’ lungs have tubes.

And mammal lungs are spongy, composed of tiny air sacs, like reptiles.

Some evolutionists insist that Platypuses are a link between mammals and birds,

Would you please name the idiot you got that from? Platypuses share characteristics of reptiles and mammals, don't let the 'bill' fool you.

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.

It's a shame, but things like milk glands don't fossilize as well as bones. And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution

And more typical mammals are found in much lower strata than the egg-laying platypus.

Platypus-like fossils are found in the Cretaceous Period. Please give an example of mammals found in much lower strata than that.

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).

In other words, every species found is as it is today, except for differences you refuse to count.

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.

True, we evolved from earlier hominids, who evolved from a common ancestor with apes, and we don't know exactly which fossil ape is the common ancestor that links the two lines. But you're okay with us evolving from Homo Erectus because of the fossils that support that, right?

The “proof” evolution has is really only scientists’ inferences.

As a rule, within their field, their inferences are much, much better than yours.

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.

Your Toyota and your Jeep do have a common ancestor. Their similar wheels are not a coincidence. It took us a long time to get from a wheel to a Toyota, each improvement an incremental step in the minds of designers, but we acted much, much faster than evolution does.

I’m not bashing science.

You don't realize you're bashing science, at least.

I’m saying that evolution isn’t science because it fails to use the scientific method: it isn’t observed, tested or demonstrated.

The conclusion of evolution is based on observation. It makes 'historical predictions', which have been tested, such as when they were used to find Tiktaalik. To the extent that it is conceivable to demonstrate on a human timescale, such as with bacteria and insects, evolution has been demonstrated.

All the data in the world won’t give evolution proof.

All the data in the world wouldn't be enough for you.

You can throw scientific principles around anything, but that doesn’t mean one supports it directly.

Not without legitimate scientists calling you out.

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.

Sheesh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_dragon

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.

Geneticists disagree.

In fact, we have experiences to show they do the opposite. 99.99% of mutations are harmful—they are errors; mistakes!

More like 70% harmful, a huge difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations

And what Natural Selection does is conserve what (usually weakly) beneficial mutations do occur, increasing their frequency in the population. They don't have to be common.

Instead, look at the scientific laws that contradict evolution. Spontaneous generation has been solemnly disproved (life from non-life).

The spontaneous generation you're talking about concerns ideas like flies coming from dung or mice arising spontaneously from garbage. The generation of life from prebiotic conditions is not contradicted by anything known to science. And this time you're over a century behind, still fighting Pasteur's battles. The rest of us have moved on.

Conservation of mass says matter cannot be created or destroyed (Big Bang).

Fallacy of composition. Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed within the universe. That's not a law that applies to the universe itself. Don't you believe the Bible when it says existence was created from nothing?

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

Guess what? That's why Ar dating isn't used to date volcanic rocks. Not all dating systems work well in all situations. More importantly we know why Ar dating doesn't work well on volcanic rocks and why it does work well on others. There's a lot to learn if you don't presume scientists are nitwits way behind the erudition of armchair critics.

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.

You really, really want science to support creationism. That's why they started calling it 'creation science'. You know that science works and crave its validation. Creation science makes a fatal mistake: it's out to prove a particular outcome. That's perhaps the most important thing science must not do if it is to succeed. That's why we have peer-review and double-blind studies, because scientists are as human as the rest of us and easily fooled by confirmation bias. It's why we have a method that, above all, roots out bias and destroys it. Have you had enough errors pointed out to you yet to realize that your creationist websites are actively lying to you? You, I excuse. You don't know any better. They know that what they're telling you isn't true. They know about transitional fossils, the actual rate of harmful mutations, that conservation of energy applies within the universe rather than to it, and they gave you the wrong facts. That's because the fact aren't on their side. I hope some day you can see that.

Peer-reviewed by who? Non-evolution believing scientists have their work peer-reviewed too, and make great cases for Intelligent Design.

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

Who’s right?

The side with the most evidence and the best explanation for it.

From what I’ve seen, science supports creationism.

Get your science from the source people who actually have to produce results that will stand up to legitimate peer review get it, and you'll see differently.

If anyone here thinks it doesn’t, point out which part and I’ll explain it away.

Confidence that you can explain anything away isn't something of which to be proud, it's merely bragging that you're close-minded on the subject.