Atheism is a religion

[genkaus]

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

Look it up.

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

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.

Its useful because if you don't take the first step, you cannot go any further.

3. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evi..._earth.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

Follow the list to see every claim refuted.

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?

First, dark matter is a matter for cosmology, not evolution. Its existence or non-existence does not reflect on evolution being true or false. It is not related to evolution at all, much less vital to it.

Second, it has been observed.

5. Calling them 'change' is only putting a subjective interpretation on the process.

No, you idiot. Change means something is not as it was before. No subjective interpretation is required. If it is not the same as before, it has changed.

DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time. When it's not, that's the organism's failure to pass clean, tested information on to its offspring. If the organism intended to copy the information perfectly and it instead came out imperfect that is an error. If I meant to type "mutation" and made the typo "muttation" would you call that an error or a change?

Except, DNA is not "supposed" in any particular way. To say that something is "supposed" to act in a certain way, presupposes an intention behind it, i.e. there is a certain way it should act in light of a certain purpose. Evolution is not a conscious process capable of forming a purpose.

Like you said, it is an error only if you "intended" to write
"mutation" and it came out "muttation". If there was no consciousness no form such an intention, then it is simply a change, not an error.

But, even given your premise of intention, how do you know that DNA is not supposed to copy the information almost as it is, but with some random changes? How do you gauge that that is not the intention?

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.

No, I don't. Because I don't think that all harmful mutations are life-threatening.

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?

And where did you get those ridiculous ratios? And why do you assume that the neutral mutations would remain neutral forever? Even harmful mutations can prove to be beneficial.

For example, CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was a mostly neutral mutation that is now beneficial.

For another, single sickle-cell gene mutation which would noramally eb consdered harmful, but is beneficial in malaria-ridden areas.

For a third, OAC2 gene mutation is also mostly benign with benefit provided only in specific cases.