It's Over.

[torchbearer]

Better be careful...you dont' know what might end up in the white house...a chicken? an ass?

it's already happening.. guess what animal bush was reversed engineered from?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

hehe....tones

 

[torchbearer]

hehe....tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

what's that? Tones

 

[torchbearer]

what's that? Tones

toner.

 

[torchbearer]

this should be your avatar.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

that new trait may be an old trait revisited.

Then you will have to show that this is the case

 

[Truth Warrior]

specification for these simple organisms isn't so easy.

If the new trait was a tail, would that help matters?

Piece of cake for macroevolutionists, just make some crap up. Call it what you want. Viola.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Then you will have to show that this is the case

No, you have to show that it's new. Still clueless ( on purpose ) on that whole burden of proof stuff, I see. I know it's really inconvenient when you don't have the facts. Poor baby.

Affirmative claim: E Coli has a new trait due to evolution.

Skeptic challenge: Prove it.

Affirmative: It wasn't there before.

Skeptic : Prove it.

Affirmative: It's due to evolution.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Etc., etc., etc.

Don't like the "scientific method" proof burdens, then just don't make the bogus claims.

 

[Dindoleki]

[deleted]

 

[kombayn]

Creationism claims the world was created in 6,000 years. That's the nail in the coffin right there, we've proven that Earth has been around 4.54 billion years old.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Creationism claims the world was created in 6,000 years. That's the nail in the coffin right there, we've proven that Earth has been around 4.54 billion years old.

I'm not claiming Creationism nor ID.

So, what's that got to do with "scientifically" PROVING macroevolutionism?

Nada!

 

[LittleLightShining]

I think it's pretty incredible 1 mutation like that occured in such a short space of time, frankly. Makes it all the more obvious the world isn't only a few thousand years old as all those who aren't molested by religion can imagine, a heck of a lot of mutations can occur in millions and billions of years as opposed to just 1 mutation in 20 SHORT YEARS.

Pete

Who didn't say it was incredible? For all your talk about the molestation of children by their faithful parents, you seem to be grasping at straws to prove why you're religion of anti-god is true.

I don't know how old the Earth is. If it's 6000 or 6 million years old matters not to me. I absolutely agree that species evolve-- in that each species adapts to its surroundings. Sometimes aberrations occur-- for the better or worse who is to say? Is the human with Down's Syndrome a new species of human? People have differing skin tones which seem to have developed based on their climate. What about eye color? Why are there so many different ones? These evolutionary changes within species do not prove that all life began as primordial ooze. Even if it did some how come down to that, I have no doubt in my mind that God created that ooze. Where else would it come from?

My parents did not molest me by introducing me to God. I was with God before I ever knew my parents. I don't need to prove that to you or anyone else. My life has been peppered with doubt in "religion" but one constant remains and that is my Creator and the Holy Spirit which dwells in me. Go ahead and shake your head and think I'm stupid and brainwashed. It doesn't hurt my feelings at all. It makes me wonder what kind of relationship you had with your own parents, particularly your father, that has hardened you and made you so angry.

 

[Conza88]

Creationism claims the world was created in 6,000 years. That's the nail in the coffin right there, we've proven that Earth has been around 4.54 billion years old.

Dinosaurs were put here, to test our FAITH!!!

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Sorry TC and TW, I can't bring myself to believe a storybook full of fictional (as well as self contradictory) tales.

Here is something that makes much more sense to me:

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

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extraterrestrial origins of life.[7]

Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. Several hypotheses have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
"iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer, involving forms of iron and sulfur [1] . Wächtershäuser proposes that an early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex compounds. A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells' would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces. Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar. Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to metabolism in cells.

Some of the fundamental ideas of the iron-sulfur theory can be summarized in the following brief recipe for life: Boil water. Stir in iron sulfide and nickel sulfide. Bubble in carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide gas. Wait for peptides to form.

More technically, Wächtershäuser hypothesized the following steps for producing proteins:

1. Produce acetic acid through metallic ion catalysis.
2. Add carbon to the acetic acid molecule to produce three-carbon pyruvic acid.
3. Add ammonia to form amino acids.
4. Produce peptides and then proteins.

Both acetic acid and pyruvic acid are key chemicals in the citric acid cycle.

In 1997, Wächtershäuser and Claudia Huber mixed carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nickel sulfide, and iron sulfide particles at 100°C and demonstrated that amino acids could form.[2] The following year, using the same ingredients, they were able to produce peptides.[3]"

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

"Protobionts are systems that are considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells.

A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. It has been suggested that they are a key step in the origin of life on earth. Experiments by Sidney W. Fox and Aleksandr Oparin have demonstrated that they may be formed spontaneously, in conditions similar to the environment thought to exist on an early Earth. These experiments formed liposomes and microspheres, which have membrane structure similar to the phospholipid bilayer found in cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

"Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaebacteria
"The Archaea (pronounced /ɑrˈkiːə/) are a group of prokaryotic, single-celled microorganisms. In this they are similar to bacteria but these two groups evolved differently, and are classified as different domains in the three-domain system. Originally these organisms were named archaebacteria. However, this term has not been favored since the three-domain system became popular.

Although there is still uncertainty in the phylogeny, Archaea, Eukaryota and Bacteria were introduced as the fundamental classifications in what would later become the three-domain system by Carl Woese in 1977. As prokaryotes, archaea are also classified in kingdom Monera in the traditional five-kingdom Linnaean taxonomy. While their prokaryotic cell structure is similar to Bacteria, the genes of Archaea and several of their metabolic pathways are more closely related to those of eukaryotes. One way to account for this is to group archaeans and eukaryotes together in the clade Neomura, which might have arisen from gram-positive bacteria. On the other hand, other studies have suggested that Archaea may instead be the most ancient lineage in the world, with bacteria and eukaryotes diverging from this group.[1]

Archaea were originally described in extreme environments, but have since been found in all habitats and may contribute up to 20% of total biomass.[2] These cells are particularly common in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet.[3] A single individual or species from this domain is called an archaeon (sometimes spelled "archeon"),[4] while the adjectival form is archaeal or archaean. The etymology is Ancient Greek, from ἀρχαία meaning "ancient things"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
"It is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of prokaryote and may have developed out of protobionts. Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered (less than 1 billion years after the formation of the earth's crust), and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today. Eukaryotes only formed later, from symbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors; their first evidence in the fossil record appears approximately 1.7 billion years ago, although genetic evidence suggests they could have formed as early as 3 billion years ago.[12]

While Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist, some have suggested evidence of life on Mars in the form of fossil or living prokaryotes;[13][14] this is open to considerable debate and skepticism.[15][16]

Prokaryotes diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct types of prokaryotes. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy like eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide. This has enabled the bacteria to thrive and reproduce. Today, archaebacteria can be found in the cold of Antarctica and in the hot Yellowstone springs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
"The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (1992) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1650 million years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2100 million years ago. [2] Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red alga.

Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present 2.7 billion years ago.[3] [4]"

I don't think Adam and Eve popped out like a microwave dinner just because Bible says so.
In my eyes, bible's credibility is non-existent anyway, because it contains many dozens of internal contradictions.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

PS. The above are just highlights, one can get lost for hours digging through mountains of information available or
one can say God did it and point to the bible for proof and end the argument.

PPS. When I found out Santa Claus wasn't real (when I was very young and accidentally saw my mother paying Santa for
bringing a present into my house), I suppose I should have not been so quick to make up my mind, after all Santa Claus
could be real if I believe he can be real right??.. and any evidence to the contrary can be disregarded without hesitation, right?. RIGHT??

 

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry TC and TW, I can't bring myself to believe a storybook full of fictional (as well as self contradictory) tales.

Here is something that makes much more sense to me:

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

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extraterrestrial origins of life.[7]

Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. Several hypotheses have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
"iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer, involving forms of iron and sulfur [1] . Wächtershäuser proposes that an early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex compounds. A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells' would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces. Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar. Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to metabolism in cells.

Some of the fundamental ideas of the iron-sulfur theory can be summarized in the following brief recipe for life: Boil water. Stir in iron sulfide and nickel sulfide. Bubble in carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide gas. Wait for peptides to form.

More technically, Wächtershäuser hypothesized the following steps for producing proteins:

1. Produce acetic acid through metallic ion catalysis.
2. Add carbon to the acetic acid molecule to produce three-carbon pyruvic acid.
3. Add ammonia to form amino acids.
4. Produce peptides and then proteins.

Both acetic acid and pyruvic acid are key chemicals in the citric acid cycle.

In 1997, Wächtershäuser and Claudia Huber mixed carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nickel sulfide, and iron sulfide particles at 100°C and demonstrated that amino acids could form.[2] The following year, using the same ingredients, they were able to produce peptides.[3]"

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

"Protobionts are systems that are considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells.

A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. It has been suggested that they are a key step in the origin of life on earth. Experiments by Sidney W. Fox and Aleksandr Oparin have demonstrated that they may be formed spontaneously, in conditions similar to the environment thought to exist on an early Earth. These experiments formed liposomes and microspheres, which have membrane structure similar to the phospholipid bilayer found in cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

"Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells."

Sorry to burst your bubble TC and TW but Adam and Eve didn't pop out like a microwave dinner just because your favourite book says so.
Besides we have many books like this, who is to say yours is right? LOL

TW?

Pardon!

I categorically deny your bogus accusation and scurrilous charge. If you've got some hard evidence somewhere about me, put up or STFU.

( Geeze, spare me from more of the sloppy dishonest "thinkers" ( so called ), PULEEEEZE! )

 

[TheEvilDetector]

TW?

TW is an abbreviation for Truthwarrior

Pardon!

No offence intended, apologies for any caused ok?

I categorically deny your bogus accusation and scurrilous charge. If you've got some hard evidence somewhere about me, put up or STFU.

I could fill a mountain with evidence, but its much more practical to just follow the links in my post and research for yourself.

( Geeze, spare me from more of the sloppy dishonest "thinkers" ( so called ), PULEEEEZE! )

LOL.

 

[Kade]

Sorry TC and TW, I can't bring myself to believe a storybook full of fictional (as well as self contradictory) tales.

Here is something that makes much more sense to me:

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

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extraterrestrial origins of life.[7]

Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. Several hypotheses have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
"iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer, involving forms of iron and sulfur [1] . Wächtershäuser proposes that an early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex compounds. A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells' would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces. Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar. Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to metabolism in cells.

Some of the fundamental ideas of the iron-sulfur theory can be summarized in the following brief recipe for life: Boil water. Stir in iron sulfide and nickel sulfide. Bubble in carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide gas. Wait for peptides to form.

More technically, Wächtershäuser hypothesized the following steps for producing proteins:

1. Produce acetic acid through metallic ion catalysis.
2. Add carbon to the acetic acid molecule to produce three-carbon pyruvic acid.
3. Add ammonia to form amino acids.
4. Produce peptides and then proteins.

Both acetic acid and pyruvic acid are key chemicals in the citric acid cycle.

In 1997, Wächtershäuser and Claudia Huber mixed carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nickel sulfide, and iron sulfide particles at 100°C and demonstrated that amino acids could form.[2] The following year, using the same ingredients, they were able to produce peptides.[3]"

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

"Protobionts are systems that are considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells.

A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. It has been suggested that they are a key step in the origin of life on earth. Experiments by Sidney W. Fox and Aleksandr Oparin have demonstrated that they may be formed spontaneously, in conditions similar to the environment thought to exist on an early Earth. These experiments formed liposomes and microspheres, which have membrane structure similar to the phospholipid bilayer found in cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

"Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaebacteria
"The Archaea (pronounced /ɑrˈkiːə/) are a group of prokaryotic, single-celled microorganisms. In this they are similar to bacteria but these two groups evolved differently, and are classified as different domains in the three-domain system. Originally these organisms were named archaebacteria. However, this term has not been favored since the three-domain system became popular.

Although there is still uncertainty in the phylogeny, Archaea, Eukaryota and Bacteria were introduced as the fundamental classifications in what would later become the three-domain system by Carl Woese in 1977. As prokaryotes, archaea are also classified in kingdom Monera in the traditional five-kingdom Linnaean taxonomy. While their prokaryotic cell structure is similar to Bacteria, the genes of Archaea and several of their metabolic pathways are more closely related to those of eukaryotes. One way to account for this is to group archaeans and eukaryotes together in the clade Neomura, which might have arisen from gram-positive bacteria. On the other hand, other studies have suggested that Archaea may instead be the most ancient lineage in the world, with bacteria and eukaryotes diverging from this group.[1]

Archaea were originally described in extreme environments, but have since been found in all habitats and may contribute up to 20% of total biomass.[2] These cells are particularly common in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet.[3] A single individual or species from this domain is called an archaeon (sometimes spelled "archeon"),[4] while the adjectival form is archaeal or archaean. The etymology is Ancient Greek, from ἀρχαία meaning "ancient things"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
"It is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of prokaryote and may have developed out of protobionts. Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered (less than 1 billion years after the formation of the earth's crust), and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today. Eukaryotes only formed later, from symbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors; their first evidence in the fossil record appears approximately 1.7 billion years ago, although genetic evidence suggests they could have formed as early as 3 billion years ago.[12]

While Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist, some have suggested evidence of life on Mars in the form of fossil or living prokaryotes;[13][14] this is open to considerable debate and skepticism.[15][16]

Prokaryotes diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct types of prokaryotes. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy like eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide. This has enabled the bacteria to thrive and reproduce. Today, archaebacteria can be found in the cold of Antarctica and in the hot Yellowstone springs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
"The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (1992) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1650 million years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2100 million years ago. [2] Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red alga.

Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present 2.7 billion years ago.[3] [4]"

I don't think Adam and Eve popped out like a microwave dinner just because Bible says so.
In my eyes, bible's credibility is non-existent anyway, because it contains many dozens of internal contradictions.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

PS. The above are just highlights, one can get lost for hours digging through mountains of information available or
one can say God did it and point to the bible for proof and end the argument.

PPS. When I found out Santa Claus wasn't real (when I was very young and accidentally saw my mother paying Santa for
bringing a present into my house), I suppose I should have not been so quick to make up my mind, after all Santa Claus
could be real if I believe he can be real right??.. and any evidence to the contrary can be disregarded without hesitation, right?. RIGHT??

Good post.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Its a new species of bacteria.

it gained new information

IT MACRO EVOLVED

Creation scientists have always conceded variation within the species level, or even the development of 'new' species. But there is no observed macroevolution between basic kinds of organisms, which roughly meant to mean at the family level or above. So bacteria merely begetting new forms of bacteria is not proof, nor hardly news.

 

[Kade]

Creation scientists have always conceded variation within the species level, or even the development of 'new' species. But there is no observed macroevolution between basic kinds of organisms, which roughly meant to mean at the family level or above. So bacteria merely begetting new forms of bacteria is not proof, nor hardly news.

That is incorrect.

Because "Macroevolution" takes millions of years, it is impossible to observe it with in some imaginary time frame...

We have observed the large time scaled evolution with precise and indisputable accuracy, most notably, in the evolution of the horse: