Where Is the Evidence, Atheists?

"The millions of words of peer reviewed science using actual testable, observable, repeatable evidence mean nothing?"

Atheists fail to understand the concept of "peer review" and what it means. In fact, your "peers" have very little to do with actual science. Science is not a consensus, and consensus is not science! Sometimes one person standing alone is following science while the others refuse to. If it is not testable, observable, and repeatable, the number of peers and reviews that support it is absolutely meaningless, useless, and worthless. In proper peer review, your work should be read and tested to see if your results can be reproduced. If there is no experimentation and observation stage, then all you have is a hypothesis. You cannot draw conclusions from a hypothesis. That is not science! If your peers merely read your work and agree with it, your work has not been peer reviewed. It has merely been agreed upon by equally ignorant individuals falsely calling themselves "scientists" who know absolutely nothing of science. But that is to be expected from atheists who pretend to be scientists.

Atheists, I challenge you to,

1. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of matter (dirt) creating DNA.
    
2. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of life magically appearing from a hot molten rock being rained upon.
    
3. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of one species (flamingo) transitioning into another species (elephant).

There is not one single transitional fossil in existence! Why? Evolution is not a fact. There is zero evidence to support Evolution. Atheists believe in Evolution by faith. Not by science. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God. Something has to be eternal. For the atheist, it is dirt; dirt created everything. For the Christian, it is God. Simple logic, common sense, and objective thought let you know which one of these is completely ludicrous. Here are some questions pertaining to the ridiculousness of Evolution:

1. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
3. When, where, why, and how did single-celled animals evolve?
4. When, where, why, and how did fish change to amphibians?
5. When, where, why, and how did amphibians change to reptiles?
6. When, where, why, and how did reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
7. When, where, why, how, and from what did whales evolve?
8. When, where, why, how, and from what did sea horses evolve?
9. When, where, why, how, and from what bats evolve?
10. When, where, why, how, and from what eyes evolve?
11. When, where, why, how, and from what ears evolve?
12. When, where, why, how, and from what hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
13. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
14. How did photosynthesis evolve?
15. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

There are hundreds more questions like these that one could ask an atheist and they will never be able to answer them. Why? Because their worldview is bankrupt. Their information does not come from naturally following the scientific evidence. They must take the time to make it up, regardless of how irrational it sounds.

"We should instead believe that a bunch of half-assed Creationists, who don't even understand how science works, know better."

For "a bunch of half-assed Creationists, who don't even understand how science works," it is rather interesting, and ironic, how the majority of the fields of mathematics and science were founded by Creationists. While secular science was teaching that the ocean floors were flat, Matthew Maury, a Christian, believed his Bible when it said that the ocean floors contained mountains and valleys, and he subsequently founded oceanography. Atheists have contributed very little to actual science and the furtherance of science other than their many fanciful fantasy fairy tales of the imagination.

In fact, atheist "scientists" are not above forgery and the fabrication of evidence, such as the existence of non-existent dinosaurs. It happened with the Apatosaurus. This dinosaur used to be called the Brontosaurus. When they discovered this dinosaur, it was missing a head. These "scientists" took a head found 4 miles away, the head of a Camarasaurus, and married it to the body, falsifying the evidence. They did the exact same thing with Lucy, the Piltdown Man, and every other "missing link" they have willfully concocted, combining pig bones, ape bones, plaster casting, etc., with human bones. Atheist "scientists" are some of the most dishonest individuals on this planet. The scientific evidence will clearly point in a particular direction and these people will purposefully and willfully lie about it.

Atheist "scientists" found nothing more than two fore-limbs and some bits of vertebrae. They then proceed to concoct an elaborate story of how Deinocheirus must have looked (from only two fore-limbs and some bits of vertebrae), as well as a detailed historical record pertaining to this imaginary dinosaur. If you had never seen a human being before and all you found were two forearm bones and three vertebrae, you could not conclude how they must have looked, let alone an intricate tale of their history, livelihood, etc. Atheist "scientists" have very little evidence for the Spinosaurus, yet, after building a robotic arm that is supposed to represent the arm of Spinosaurus, they argue for the imaginary strength and force this dinosaur supposedly had. When you build a robotic arm, you give it whatever amount of strength and force you want, even making it capable of tearing through a car door. A robotic arm is not a dinosaur arm! Based on their robotic arm, these "scientists" then concluded that the Spinosaurus was monstrously strong. That is not science! You found a bunch of bones! Those bones do not inform you of the dinosaur's strength or force! There is zero scientific evidence to support the idea of Spinosaurus' strength and force, just as there is zero evidence to support the idea that if you stood completely still, Tyrannosaurus Rex could not see you or detect you.

Come on, people! Use your God-given brain and apply some logic, common sense, and objective rationale. Be critical thinkers, not a bunch of mindless dupes.

The only thing that atheists have contributed to science is a bankrupt worldview built upon a bunch of fantastic imaginary fairy tales that require more faith than that required to believe in God Almighty creating the universe. Atheists are not scientists; they are story tellers up there with Dr. Seuss and Joseph Smith. The stuff atheist "scientists" try to feed you is a bunch of anti-intellectual drivel; verbal diarrhea, if you will. Those who choose to believe the lies fed to them by atheist "scientists" are guilty of committing intellectual suicide. Whether you choose to believe in God or not, the scientific evidence is with Creationists. Deal with it!

Because of this fact, which Evolutionists dislike (that the scientific evidence is with Creationists), some of their biggest mouths, yet least educated minds, consistently engage in ad hominem attacks against Creationists. They cannot argue based on factual evidence, so they have to rely on ad hominem attacks. Just scour YouTube videos and comments and you will see tens of thousands of ignorant individuals without any scientific education in any field of science flapping their gums in blind support of Evolution. Typically, they will first spew information that has long been refuted and disproved, followed second by their ad hominem attacks because they are unable and incapable of answering the logical questions leveled against them. Basically, all Evolutionists, if they cannot get their own way, will take their crayons and their ball, call you a bunch of names, and go home. It is quite clear that Evolutionists do not understand how science works; if you cannot test it, observe it, and repeat it, then it is not science! Inference and conjecture are not science!

The origins of the universe belong to history class, not to science class (where you test, observe, and repeat hypotheses). There is zero science with regard to the origin of the universe. It is all historical, and the best historical record we have of the origin of the universe is contained in the Bible, God's Word. There is zero you can test, observe, and repeat (the scientific method) with regard to the origin of the universe. You simply cannot do it! Real science is based on empirical evidence (what you can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch), what you can test, observe, and repeat. If you cannot do that, it is not science! Anything beyond empirical evidence, what you can test, observe, and repeat, is called Science Fiction! Anyone who thinks science is the be-all and end-all of life, and that it can answer every question, is ignorant of the limitations of science, and has turned science into their god. If ignorance is bliss, these Evolutionists must be living in paradise.