Atheism is a religion

[Undeceived]

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

Yes, that is not dictionary.com's definition of science, but I'm using it in the sense of objective vs. subjective. Anything that has been observed, tested or demonstrated is, in that part, objective. If it has been none of the three (and I mean the driving forces of evolution), it is subjective. Evolution is subjective. Hypothesizing how life *could* have come to be is not the same as observing, testing or demonstrating how it really did.

Fossilization is a rare event, only a tiny fraction of organisms have been preserved as fossils.

The point is that we have gaps of hundreds of millions of years. We have multiple fossils of most fossilized organisms, but none of the vital others. For instance, there are hundreds of discovered trilobite fossils. Yet not one is varied from the rest. There should be another hundred with one mutation difference, another hundred with an additional one, and so on. If evolution really happened gradually, the number of varied trilobites should greatly outnumber the originals, all the way down to the horshoe crab. Thousands of generations aren't in the fossil record at all. If K-Ar dating is accurate, plenty of natural disasters happened that could have carried this out. Yet early trilobites are no different from later trilobites. They appear, then they vanish. It isn't that the fossil record is full of holes. The fossil record is nothing but isolated species with imagined links between them.

You're about 20 years out-of-date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur.

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.

Homo erectus:
The main evidence for this is the "Java ape-man." What Dr. Dubois found was a piece of the top of the skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone and three molar teeth. But they were collected over a range of seventy feet, and discovered over the span of one year. The remains were next to an old river, where bones of other extinct animals can be found. How can it be known that they were from the same creature? Out of the twenty-four European scientists who evaluated the find, ten said they came from an ape, and seven from a man. That is no consensus. The main difference between the Homo Erectus skulls and most modern day's is the cranial capacity. But there are people today who DO have the same cranial capacity (like pygmies), and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians). There is nothing else to say they were primitive.

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

The fact remains, if the driving force of evolution is inferences, it is subjective and therefore not true science. And they have reasons for not wanting a God to exist, making their inferences less trustworthy.

To the extent that it is conceivable to demonstrate on a human timescale, such as with bacteria and insects, evolution has been demonstrated.

You mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution. It involves the dying off of unsuitable genes and therefore does not increase information in the genetic code. You need mutations to do that, and progression via mutations has not been demonstrated.

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

I wrote that as an analogy, to say that using principles like gravity and air resistance cannot prove the evolution, just as the possibility of mutations increasing genetic info is not proof without further evidence--and we know there are no (or a few questionable) documentations of mutations increasing genetic info. I am aware there are lizards that glide; I see them on Nature shows all the time.

The generation of life from prebiotic conditions is not contradicted by anything known to science.

That's because prebiotic conditions were contrived by men who thought, "Hmm.. what perfect conditions would I need to start life?" There is no evidence that the prebiotic soup existed, apart from its necessity to evolution.

Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed within the universe. That's not a law that applies to the universe itself.

Then you agree that the catalyst of matter and energy was supernatural. If its outside of the universe, it is not natural, and is then by definition, supernatural.

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. 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.

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.

...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.