Complaints of the Religious image - Atheists, Agnostics, and Anti-theists of ModDB

You misunderstood my comment. I said "that when deer_hunter begins considering his religion as science and my religion as non-science...." I'm talking from the perspective of what deer_hunter considers, not what I consider. Sorry for not making that clear.

I meant evolution, it's an unproven belief which can be categorized as religion. Nobody has seen evolution happening, all we see 'are the effects of it' we could interpet the facts as effects of evolution or we could also interpet them as effects of an intelegent designer. It depends on whether or not we base our beliefs on what someone's interpetation of bones (basicly someone's imagination) tells us or on what a book (written by EYEWITNESSES) tells us. I chose to base my beliefs on a historical document which fits the things we see.

I found something you might find interesting:

Io9.com

^^^that is why evolution is not science! If it cannot be observed then it cannot be observable science by use of the scientific method. All we can do is look at the effects and try to figure out what happened we can observe the effects by the use of science. But any interpretation of the facts is an interpetation. It is important to be UNBIASED when assessing the observations which is why I get mad/concerned/alarmed when people imminently rule out the existence of God.

STOP. LYING. DAMN IT.

Evolution is proven, it has been observed. Stating other wise is simply not true.

"Evolution is proven, it has been observed. Stating other wise is simply not true."

ROFL

First of all, the argument about transitional forms just about always ends up as a stalemate. The evolutionist tends to use the similarities between fossils as proof of a connection, while the creationist tends to use the differences between fossils as proof of a lack of one. Both sides are confronted with the same material and evidence, but they interpret it differently because they have different presuppositions about the earth's origin. Long story short, I suggest you thoroughly study the arguments of BOTH sides before drawing a final conclusion.

An article you should read: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Also, you should realize that radiometric dating has a lot of flaws, and the process can easily be messed up by someone's presuppositions. Once, a freshly butchered cow was radio-metrically dated for use in an experiment. Of all things, the dead cow registered as over 15,000 years old.

Here is another article that explains more about radiometric dating: http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_080__Radiometric_Dating__.html

That article about radiometric dating makes me laugh at how inaccurate it is. And using the wrong dating techniques will of course give wrong dates. For instance, you can't carbon date Feldspar because there's NO ******* CARBON IN IT, you can't date a cow using the uranium-lead method because there's NO ******* URANIUM IN IT.

I have. Creationists have nothing but arguments from ignorance, strawmen, lies, and other logical fallacies. While evolutionary biologists have tangible, verifiable, repeatable evidence.

"For instance, you can't carbon date Feldspar because there's NO ******* CARBON IN IT, you can't date a cow using the uranium-lead method because there's NO ******* URANIUM IN IT."

The problem with evolutionary radiometric dating systems is not that they use the wrong techniques. The problem is that when people instantly assume evolution is true, they can miss a lot of very important steps that need to be taken when dating a fossil, such as estimating the effects of the weather on the site, or other factors by which the rate of radioactivity loss would change. A fossil may be dated as several million years old by an evolutionist, but when the effects of the weather and site condition are taken into due consideration, the fossil may date as less than 200 years old.

"Creationists have nothing but arguments from ignorance, strawmen, lies, and other logical fallacies."

What exactly do you mean by "creationist"? Do you refer to the scientists who turned their backs on evolution when they realized how flawed it was, or do you mean the the conservative jerks how run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, telling people that judgment awaits them? Do you mean the creationists who do their best to live their life in the service of mankind, or do you refer to the power-hungry creationist media moguls who use Christianity to control people? Which ones are you talking about? They are all vastly different, so you need to know who and what exactly you oppose before you start spouting off about how creationists are evil.

I mean so called "Creation Scientists", which is an oxymoron because creation is unscientific.

And they take all of those steps, else their results wouldn't hold up in peer-review.

Oh you mean viruses evolve? Well yeah but they MUST have a small life span and large population(or something like that) I heard something about that a while ago so I'm probably wrong. I'm hoping someone else will give you a better description on them.

Evolution is why you need a new flu shot every other year. HIV virii evolve even faster.