Atheists Is Evolution SCIENTIFIC based on FACTS or is it really a RELIGION based on FAITH?

no it isnt....GOD MADE THIS EARTH AND THE skies..

the laws of nature are predictable AND orderly... something which your faith system cannot and should not expect----eh?---- religion of chaotic disorder based on nothing more than random chance---putting aside the 'religion' part, I think you're speaking not about particle physics but quantum physics which, frankly, I think only exists in the minds of quantum physicists. It's a stop gap b/c they haven't figured out how it works yet.----- and the mathematical laws of probability, which overwhelmingly show your belief of random chance (mutations) EVER happening even ONCE, never mind the millions of times that would be needed for ANY macro-evolution to happen (ignoring that you can't account for the injection of intelligence into the system to move the organic life upwards, and not just across (speciation)).----thing is, even if I were to buy into your position against evolution, the simple description of God as 'all loving' and 'all powerfull' is disproven on a daily basis. And even if God was 'all loving' and 'all powerfull' (in which case Earth would be a paradise, which is to say that there would be no suffering, lest you look at a pretty butterfly and assert that it is paradise), there would be no reason to WORSHIP God, but rather, simply give him a 'thank you' and be on your way. If that's not enough for God, I'll happily take over the job and no one has to worship me b/c I'm not an insecure psychotic nutter.As for 'the injection of intelligence', actually, that's a simple....you know what? Why do I bother?

Your question is questionable.

"In other words since evolution is not testable it cannot be verifiable and reliable."

Evolution can be tested, has been tested, and is continually being tested. It is not necessary to observe evolution in action in order to test it. If evolution has occurred, then evolutionary theory posits that it should have observable effects. Also, if it is false, then then it can be falsified by observing effects that prove it to be false.

For example, as one scientist has said, all it would take to disprove evolution would be to find a fossil rabbit in Cambrian strata.

If evolution has taken place, then applicable predictions can be made about what should be found in relevant areas of study. Such predictions have been made and have been verified.

For example:

About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.

That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.

Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215...

These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.genome.gov/13514624

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

No creationist pseudoscientist could make a prediction like that.

And even if evolution could be disproved, that does not automatically make ancient Hebrew myth true.

Cut-and-paste fail.

You might try to track down those out-of-context snippets from Simpson and Kitts to see what they really said.

You seem not to realize that Karl Popper is deceased. He's been dead for about 15 years now, which I'm guessing is more than a lifetime ago for you.

Besides, evolutionary theory is manifestly refutable in many ways. New observations continually shape theory, even as they provide more and more support for its basic premises. But if you want to refute it, there are hundreds of things you could do. J.B.S. Haldane famously proposed "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" as a discovery that would falsify evolution. Nobody's found them yet, but that doesn't mean you can't try. So why don't you go look for some bunnies?

Faith in Evolution For the WIN

Scientists have proved that things have evolved over time. that is concrete evidence. the scientific method is always changing but the results always end up the same. the whole world is constantly evolving. look at the dinosaurs, our lizards, alligators, and such are the descendants. i dont necessarily believe in the big bang theory but i dont believe that a "god" created the earth.

there is no concrete evidence that a "god" exists. and if one does, then why are there so many religions and so many other "godlike" deitys. and which one created the world, can you tell me that? i dont believe in the bible, many of the things that the bible preaches is either illegal now or doesnt apply to us now. and who knows who actually wrote the bible. if im going to worship a book such as the bible, we might as well worship something as absurd as the twilight novels (makes no sense right)

No, you see the difference between science & faith is that science "matures" if you will in that as our base of knowledge expands then theories are changed to accommodate what we've learned.

In the traditional framework of an organized religion you believe what you were told to believe forever, regardless of the intrusion of facts & experiences which may contradict your beliefs from time to time.

There are many elements of evolutionary theory which are very testable & get updated (after the arguments get settled) slowly but continually.

Of course whether you choose to recognize what is there to be observed & how qualified you yourself are at such matters is another matter entirely.

There is one crucial error in your argument, and that is your mistake of applying the colloquial definition of "observation" to a scientific context. Observation in science does not simply mean to see with your own eyes. Evolution has indeed been observed scientifically. So there is no need for faith in evolution. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, and it is not opposed to God. I personally both accept evolution and have faith in God.

While I'm sure the publisher of this Creationist screed doesn't mind, you are aware that that is copyrighted text that you are cut-n-pasting?

Here's an idea. How about if you take the time to actually UNDERSTAND the argument, then put it into YOUR OWN WORDS? You'd at least gain some credibility here.

Creationists do not exercise the Scientific Method.

Evolution has been tested and retested and results support it.

You are playing games with the definition of 'faith' and don't really understand what Science really is.

Since evolution is observable, it's science. Since gods are not observable, they aren't.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable. It makes quite a lot of predictions, all of which came true so far. Find a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata, or human and dinosaur fossils together, and you have debunked evolution.

Science based on facts.It is both observable and demonstrable.You're letting ignorance of science and religious dogma obstruct your view of reality.

god =faith

evolution=facts,evidence and reality.