reply to post by HappyBunny
Toothy, look up Richard Lenski at the University of Wisconsin and check out the extremely well-done experiment he and his students did with E. coli.
IMO it's one of the best-designed and executed experiments ever done.
If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.
Well I found the wiki on him...
One of the things I have to point out is how is claiming that repeatable changes in seperate populations occured in his testing, which is a clear
indication to me that the subjects are being exposed to something they didn't know about. Of course it could be anything, as in the case of ADHD
that I keep pointing to.
The bacteria never changed into another organisim but an assumption was made that because some changes were found, it was on its way to eventually
become something else, not E Coli bacteria.
There has never been any proof that a species evolves into another species, but an assumption is always made that because there are changes found,
that its on its way to doing so. It is perhaps the biggest load of crap when it comes to evolution. Changes don't prove macroevolution, but is sure
Just like in the example of the kodiac bear mating with the polar bear, and creating a new offspring, you started with bears, and you ended up with
bears. As with the E Coli, you started with Ecoli and ended with EColi.
We just never seem to find that instant where a species is no longer that species, hasn't that ever made you wonder? With so much evolution going on
right under our noses, you would think we would be able to prove that it's happening, but we can't, all we can prove is there are changes. But
changes don't prove evolution, yet all changes are assumed to be evolution. These are the types of problems that occur when people start making
assumptions, and when others start accepting those assumptions as proof. They are not proof, they are only speculation.
These changes can be from so many things, they can be from radiation in the air, sickness in the air, there are so many things it's almost impossible
to narrow down what is causing what to change. These changes are not part of any process like claimed by evolutionists, and to admit so, strongly
suggests intelligent programming of some sort.
If evolution is capable of rendering over a billion species, then by all definition, it is a creator, there is no way you can side step that fact. A
process could be a creator, it doesn't have to be a god like we are all taught. And anything that has made over a billion species didn't do so by
accident, it's clear there is an agenda behind it all.