Atheism is a religion

[leo-rcc]

1. Show me proof. Where has increase in information been observed?

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf

If that is not what you mean by information, please define information better.

And what transitional fossils are there you are sure are transitional fossils, and not just extinct organisms with similarities to two living organisms?

All of them are transitional fossils, all organisms evolve all the time. But the process is such that you need to take huge steps to see that change takes place as it is all on such a gradual level that one cannot see the changes overnight.

2. Yes, but if you did only the first step of long division would you call it mathematics? Maybe you would, but that would hardly qualify as useful.

If your long division doesn't need to be finished at a certain time (there is no goal) who cares if only the first step is carried out now? A gradual change over time doesn't need to be useful, any change can be useless as long as the change is not detrimental to the organism. All it takes are miniscule changes that develop over time, in their own time, as they happen.

4. And that shows science's bias. 95% of the matter needed for the Big Bang to have happened does not exist to our senses today. Since the absent matter is so vital to evolution, scientists come up with 'Dark Matter' to explain it. Why are they so willing to take leaps of faith for atheism but not theism?

Are you arguing evolution or cosmology? Please pick a topic and stay with it.

5. If I meant to type "mutation" and made the typo "muttation" would you call that an error or a change?

In language it is an error. A chemical reaction is neither correct or an error, just different. If the change works than great, if it doesn't and is neutral, no problem, if it is detrimental it will seize to function.

I agree most mutations are neutral, but there are still more harmful than beneficial ones. You make the assumption that a harmfully-mutated organism would not reproduce. I say most would. Let's suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds and that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Whatever the real numbers, you can be sure more fatal mutations survive than beneficial ones. Look at mice experiments in which they are subjected to radiation. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

Interesting point, but why would that matter? We already know that 99% of all species will die out, and some will survive, this is not a problem for evolution. Just because the odds of a new species evolving is very small doesn't make it impossible or even improbable. It just takes a lot of time and slight variations.