Atheism is a religion

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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.

Evolution doesn't hypothosize how life began - that's a different thing than what evolution does.
I tell you what, if you manage to come up with and explain even a very basic understanding of what evolution is and how it works, I and others here might give better credance to what you say.

In the meantime, all I can say to the above statement is that I can summerize your words thusly:
"I won't use the standard definisition of science, so I'll use my own and make sure that evolution doesn't fit that definition."
Even by setting up that strawman (that IS a strawman, given the definition I provided in my previous post from Wikipedia) you still couldn't even set up a good arguement against evolution being a science since you neither understand it nor haev you set up a plausible arguement against that bad definition. Geez.

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.

The fossil record, despite being only a small percentage of the total numbe of living things that have existed on the planet, is far more complete than you give it credit for. The human species and our evolutionary predecessors actually at this point have more examples than is strictly necessary to link us all - let alone the links to and from the other species we have fossils of.
Given your complete lack of scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth, you've also failed to understand that the fossils aren't the only thing that point to an evolutionary history of life on the planet.
You can thank our new and keen understanding of genetics for that.

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.

That's because you refuse to look beyond your retarded creationist websites for information. Secondly, given your statement regarding the so-called "archeoptrix hoax" is further proof of your complete lack of understanding of evolutionary history of life on this planet.

I recommend that you brush up more on your google-fu and expand you search to websites who don't edit their evidence due to a pre-existing agenda of "if it doesn't prove the bible, I'm going to ignore it."

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.

You really think there's a motivation within the scientific field to avoid positing evidence that's been truely found on the field FOR god?
You don't think that such a discovery would immediately and irrevocably make such a scientist the wealthiest and most famous individual on the planet if someone could actually prove the existence of god?
Is "it's clearly a conspiracy" the only explaination you have?
What reasons, precisely, does the scientific community have for doing what you say other than challenging people's faith in a divine creator?

Someone's been drinking some serious church kool-aid.

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.

Again - you only prove that you have NO idea how evolution actually works. You're proving that a discussion with you is absolutely pointless because you don't understand the science, you only understand the arguemetns of ignorant and occasionally stupid people who have made the same retarded arguemetns before you.
How about you read a textbook or two on evolutionary science 101, come back, and then we can have an actual discussion on the topic because you're speaking utter nonsense.

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.

Actually the prebiotic conditions on earth were based on years of research in geology, chemistry, astronomy, and numerous other sciences that predicted the early conditions on earth. When recreated in a laboratory, the early earth conditions were capable of producing the chemicals of life that persist in nearly every living thing to this day, billions of years later.
But again... I'm guessing you either skipped a few necessary high school classes or drank some serious answersingenesis.com koolaid. You clearly know precisely two things about evolutionary history, abiogeneiss, or everything else that would allow you to know any of this.

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.

False Dichonomy Fallacy.
"The universe has a net positive amount of energy" doesn't mean "God did it." It means "The universe has a net positive amount of energy. Period."
Your conclusion is not based off of evidence. You're making up answers with no supporting evidence to which the conclusion you have can be made.

The presumption is that God doesn't exist.

That's not a presumption scientists make. Indeed any presumption precludes doing any science at all. That's why creation science isn't. That's why intelligent design isn't science.
That's why evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, IS science.
They don't make presumptions.

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?

Science journals tend to not let quacks publish articles.