Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

 

[viole]

Why not? The evolutionists keep repeating that their cherished belief is a fact....but it is not a fact by any definition of the word.



Yes really.....I see total dishonesty in calling theory based on grand assumptions, an established fact......the foundations of your belief are seriously flawed. You are looking at the impressive building and the academic credentials of those who built it...I see huge cracks in the foundations. We all know that the foundations of a building are the most important part. Weak foundations mean the whole building will collapse sooner rather than later.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but don't try to tell people that evolution is fact...it just plain isn't. They want it to be, but they have no conclusive proof.....assuming that something happened, doesn't mean it did.

All I see are protests, but no proof. Show us your evidence and I will show you the cracks in the foundations.
Every piece I have read as proof of evolution has the subtle language of assumption and speculation.

Actually, you do not to be a biologist to see evolution. All you have to do is go to a natural park and meet the gorillas. You will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

So, what is more likely? That we and the gorillas share the same ancestor, or that God has been inspired by gorillas when creating the pinnacle of His creation?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JM2C]

I corrected you, you refused to accept you were mistaken. The only reason for this is due to your lack of education or that your ideology prevents you from doing so. You went off the deep end in order to defend your ideology while rejecting not just me but other posters pointing out you were wrong. Let also not pretend you started calling me genius, starting using caps and colours as if it means something. Nice try at playing the victim. /tiny violin
If you are that emotional unstable you should not interact with people in public or avoid people that do not share your views. DIR is the place to post as I only read but never comment on those threads.

I guess you have reading comprehension issues. Were you home-schooled or are you incompetent?

and this is how you correct others who don’t agree with you, GENIUS? Let’s not start crying now. What did I tell you? You can correct me without insulting me.

 

[JM2C]

Not pride. Historical records support my views. Use that line when you are not a member of a cult relegated as irrelevant in Biblical scholarship and the field of history.


I only hold you responsible for your own failings for accepting evidence against your views, inability to know let along use logic, lack of understanding of fallacies and use of circular logic. Play the victim to someone that cares.

What historical records are you talking about? You can’t even explain those two verses without falling apart and you got the nerve to say that you knew something about historical records. You blame your failure on me, that’s what you’ve been doing so far. You’re questioning my education while you’re the one lacking it.

 

[JM2C]

Explain what, which method, history, theology, philosophy, etc? You are leaving me the choice of method to use thus provided no parameter of your intent. Learn how to form proper sentences so you can communicate your idea better.... I already provided based on your incapability to focus your points.

You should stop man, you don’t know what you’re saying here. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[JM2C]

A claim anyone can make. She could of lied, the story could be a lie. I am born of a virgin. Big deal.... A claim you can not prove is useless and dismissed as such.

Is that how you argue. This is not a matter of opinion. Opinion generates nothing but ignorance and you AND THE OTHER GUY are full of it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, GENIUS?

 

[JM2C]

Often time people who are fundamentalist and live fanaticism without even knowing it, due to their religious bias, frustrate those who know the truth.

When "some" theist literally add up 1 + 1 = and get 43 for the answer because a ancient book of theology and mythology says so. it is frustrating.

We came here to debate and we can do this without using unpleasant words. If you start something, like using nasty words, then, please DO NOT CRY LIKE A CHILD AND HIT THE "REPORT" BUTTON ON THE LEFT.

 

[Shad]

and this is how you correct others who don’t agree with you, GENIUS? Let’s not start crying now. What did I tell you? You can correct me without insulting me.

This was only made after you 1) Didn't reference the words in English with Hebrew and Greek then proceeded to ignore your error as if I didn't link you a lexicon with the very words themselves. So this was a conclusion since you ignored the very words in the verse.

What historical records are you talking about? You can’t even explain those two verses without falling apart and you got the nerve to say that you knew something about historical records. You blame your failure on me, that’s what you’ve been doing so far. You’re questioning my education while you’re the one lacking it.

If you provided parameters I would have, sadly you did not. Again I pointed out a conclusion since you failed to actually ask a question and focus your argument. Beside your linked verse had nothing to do with a census thus is a red herring, illogical and irrelevant.

You should stop man, you don’t know what you’re saying here. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Amusing coming from a person that does not know the meaning of bend and length, can not use a lexicon nor dictionary. Notice you failed to even provide any parameters which I asked for? Instead you went straight into an emotional reaction since you are easily distracted and have thin-skin.

Is that how you argue. This is not a matter of opinion. Opinion generates nothing but ignorance and you AND THE OTHER GUY are full of it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, GENIUS?

Considering there is no evidence of a virgin birth beside the very books claiming there was one I can dismiss it just as easily as anyone or any number of people claiming they were born of a virgin. Just as people do with Krishna, Karna, Horus, Romulus, etc. Find a sample of Jesus', Mary's and Josephs blood so we can compare genetic markers. Find an example of pathenogensis in humans which produced a viable off-spring. There are more plausible explains then a virgin-birth which anyone is free to use.

We came here to debate and we can do this without using unpleasant words. If you start something, like using nasty words, then, please DO NOT CRY LIKE A CHILD AND HIT THE "REPORT" BUTTON ON THE LEFT.

You also can not have a debate when you ignore linked evidence, do not understand the basic definition of a word, use a dictionary and lexicon. Unpleasant words are only your reaction to a number of people pointing out your errors. Perhaps if you reined in your emotions and took criticism well there would be no issue. Alas your ideology has prevent your from doing so. There is no issue with pointing this out.

If you were reported it was not by me. I have yet to report anyone as it only silence opposing views and is often abused as a comfort against such views.

 

[gnostic]

They went to Bethlehem from the city of Nazareth to register [Read Luke 2:3-5] and “While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” –Luke 2:6-7.

“And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” –Luke 2:21

It says after “eight days” from birth, right? They were still in Bethlehem at this time.

“And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord” –Luke 2:22

On the eighth day a male child was circumcised [read Ge 17:12], after which the mother was unclean an additional thirty-three days [read Lev 12:1-5].

IOW, from the birth of the Lord Jesus to the time of Mary’s purification had finished, they stayed in Bethlehem for over 41 days and then, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.” –Luke 2:39-40.

From here is Matthew’s chronological account of their flight to Egypt.

A short time later, Joseph and Mary and the CHILD/PAIDION Jesus [not an BABY/BREPHOS anymore LUKE'S] in Matthew it says, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” –Matt 2:1-3.

“After coming into the HOUSE they saw the CHILD/PAIDION [and not a BABY/BREPHOS anymore in LUKE’S] with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” –Matt 2:11.

NOTICE that they were in the “HOUSE” and SAW THE CHILD/PAIDION” as not in the “MANGER” where the shepherds saw the “BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the MANGER”. Can you tell the difference now? “HOUSE/MATTHEW” and “MANGER/LUKE”

“So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the manger.” Luke 2:16.

ARE YOU HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF THE EVENT?

BORN/BABY/JESUS/MANGER/SHEPHERDS/HEROD NOT SEARCHING YET/NO FLIGHT TO EGYPT YET/LUKE’S ACCOUNT. The keyword here is “BABY/BREPHOS”

CHILD/JESUS/HOUSE/MAGI/HEROD SEARCHING/YES FLIGHT TO EGYPT/MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT. The keyword here is “CHILD/PAIDION”

After the Magi left the CHILD/PAIDION Jesus [and not a BABY/BREPHOS in LUKE’S],

“Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the CHILD/PAIDION [and not a BABY/BREPHOS in LUKE’S] and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the CHILD/PAIDION to destroy Him.” So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” –Matt 2:13-15

“But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, “Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child’s life are dead.” “So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.” –Matthew 2:19-21

“Came to the land of Israel –Matt 2:21” MEANING: they were in the land of Israel already from Egypt or just across the border. As soon as they crossed the border from Egypt is the district of Idumea, [Part of Israel already, or part of Achelaus’ 3 districts and the other two were Judea and Samaria] and after Idumea is Judea where “Archelaus was reigning –Matt 2:22”.

“But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,” Matthew 2:22.

It says: Joseph “was afraid to go there”. Where? In Judea. Why? Because of Archelaus, known for his ruthlessness, and from where Joseph supposedly “heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea”, perhaps in Idumea, so they went straight to where they used to live, and that is, in the region of Galilee in the city of Nazareth, a district ruled by Archelaus’ brother Herod Antipas.

MT 2:23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
IT BLEW ON YOUR FACE, DIDN’T IT?

You have just proven my points, that Christian apologist will use circular reasoning to reconcile 2 different versions of event.

Matthew never stated how old Jesus was, when the magi visited them and no age to Jesus when they left Bethlehem for Egypt. But you are trying to say a baby or infant is not a child is laughable. Matthew never disclosed Jesus' age, and when a baby it is a child.

Sorry, but when is a baby never a "child"?

Another way of saying a woman is pregnant is to say "she is with child", and that's when the baby not being born yet. An unborn baby being called a child, and after the baby being born it is a child. A child doesn't denote any age, whether it be as infant, toddler or adolescent or a teenager.

You make me laugh when you think using word "child" doesn't mean a "baby".

At no time did Matthew's gospel mentioned them living in Nazareth till they left Egypt (2:23); and only then did Joseph decided to make Nazareth their home. Using the other gospel (Luke's) doesn't prove anything, because no where did the gospel of Matthew (1:18-25), did it ever say they did any travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem while Mary was pregnant.

In Luke, Nazareth was already the home of Joseph, they were already living there, but that not the case according to Matthew 2:23. If they were already living in Nazareth, then 2:23 wouldn't be written -

There he made his home in a town called Nazareth

 

[JayJayDee]

Actually, you do not to be a biologist to see evolution. All you have to do is go to a natural park and meet the gorillas. You will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

So, what is more likely? That we and the gorillas share the same ancestor, or that God has been inspired by gorillas when creating the pinnacle of His creation?

Since God used the same raw materials in all of his earthly creation, why wonder that we see a similarity in genetic make up and even traits in animals that are very like our own? We all have the same Creator. We ARE like them in many ways.....the only thing that makes us different is our intellect and spiritual capacity. Being "made in God's image and likeness", humans alone possess abilities that animals do not. Morality for example is a uniquely human trait...as is the complex spoken and written language we take for granted. Humans alone have a concept of past, present and future...we can plan a future event based solely on our ability to predict the outcome of any situation and weigh up the options before acting.

We are creators like God......we make make works of art....compose music....poetry....theatre....all unique to us because it isn't programmed like instinct is in animals. We operate by free will. Animals are not endowed with any of those traits.

So the human 'animal' is unique among all creation. God was not inspired by gorillas but simply adding variety to his creation by making some posses similar traits to ourselves. Who isn't fascinated by monkeys? Who doesn't love the loyalty and affection of their dog? Who isn't inspired by the intellect of dolphins and their ability to mimic humans? Elephants demonstrate family attachments and mothers in nature take tender care of their young.

But when do we see animals appreciating anything intellectually? When was the last time you saw a cow admiring a sunset...or a wild animal consulting a recipe book for tonight's dinner?

Why does belief in a Creator depend on the stupid stance of creationists who dig their heels in and demand that the creative days were 24 hrs long? The Bible allows for the earth itself to be very ancient....million, even billions of years in fact. Living things appeared over vast ages of time, but not in the gradual sequence implied by evolution. The creative "days" may well have been epochs of time. Genesis says they had a beginning and an end......but God is not bound by earth time.

Living creatures and the systems that support them were designed and created to work beautifully and in a very self sustaining manner. No systems that humans use that interact and interconnect, appear by chance. They are designed and manufactured by extremely intelligent humans who can be congratulated for their achievements. But when it comes to the systems that form the natural world.....even more astoundingly complex and self replicating, we have no one to congratulate but the blind forces of evolution. Sorry...that is a no brainer for me.

 

[gnostic]

Why does belief in a Creator depend on the stupid stance of creationists who dig their heels in and demand that the creative days were 24 hrs long? The Bible allows for the earth itself to be very ancient....million, even billions of years in fact. Living things appeared over vast ages of time, but not in the gradual sequence implied by evolution. The creative "days" may well have been epochs of time. Genesis says they had a beginning and an end......but God is not bound by earth time.

Except that you are ignoring the verses that state each day, "And there was evening and there was morning..." ...which does mean a day is just a day, and not some warped apologetic excuse of some unspecified epochs.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." tell me me that each day is from sunset to sunset.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't mean years, decades, centuries or millennia.

What does "And there was evening and there was morning..." really mean to you?

 

[JayJayDee]

Except that you are ignoring the verses that state each day, "And there was evening and there was morning..." ...which does mean a day is just a day, and not some warped apologetic excuse of some unspecified epochs.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." tell me me that each day is from sunset to sunset.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't mean years, decades, centuries or millennia.

What does "And there was evening and there was morning..." really mean to you?

And yet the scriptures tell us otherwise.

Having a beginning and an end does not necessarily mean a 24 hour day. Even in English we use the expression "in my grandfather's day".... Do we mean a 24 hour period?

If someone speaks about "the dawn of a new era" do we automatically assume that it means a 24 hour period? We use the word "day" in more than one way...so do the scriptures.

The days in Genesis are clearly defined and much creative energy was expended in each of them. Why do we imagine that a timeless Creator would limit his activities to a single rotation of the earth? Where does it say in Genesis that the "days" are 24 hours long?

Did you know that Genesis 2:4 uses the same word to encompass all of creation?
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (NASB)

Peter also sheds light on what a "day" is to God.

"However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. " (2 Pet 3:8)

So it isn't as cut and dried as you think.

 

[JayJayDee]

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]​

Source​

You just described yourself Mestemia. That is hilarious! Thank you...I just needed that today.

 

[gnostic]

And yet the scriptures tell us otherwise.

Having a beginning and an end does not necessarily mean a 24 hour day. Even in English we use the expression "in my grandfather's day".... Do we mean a 24 hour period?

If someone speaks about "the dawn of a new era" do we automatically assume that it means a 24 hour period? We use the word "day" in more than one way...so do the scriptures.

The days in Genesis are clearly defined and much creative energy was expended in each of them. Why do we imagine that a timeless Creator would limit his activities to a single rotation of the earth? Where does it say in Genesis that the "days" are 24 hours long?

Did you know that Genesis 2:4 uses the same word to encompass all of creation?
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (NASB)

Peter also sheds light on what a "day" is to God.

"However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. " (2 Pet 3:8)

So it isn't as cut and dried as you think.

Did I mention anything in my reply "24-hour"?

No, I i didn't. I didn't mention hours at all.

I only had quoted "And there was evening and there was morning...", which appeared in 6 verses in Genesis 1, for each day. That a cycle of one evening and one morning, would only equal to just 1 day. The cycle of a single day, in Jewish calendar, is from sunset to sunset.

So you saying "24-hour day to me, is simply attacking a straw man.

And I have asked you a very simple question to you in my last reply:

What does "And there was evening and there was morning..." really mean to you?

What do an "evening" or a "morning", as it being used in 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31 mean?

"And there was evening and there was morning...", mean one day, not one thousand years.

You have dishonestly ignored "And there was evening and there was morning..."

As to 2 Peter 3:8, it has nothing to do with Genesis 1. This is like you poster of a kitten, and you say it is "coffee mug". Do I bloody care what stupid Peter write? I sure hell don't, because Peter's verse is unrelated.

You know, it is Christian like you that give me the image of Christian of being dishonest.

 

[McBell]

You just described yourself Mestemia. That is hilarious! Thank you...I just needed that today.

Perhaps so.
However, it also describes you.

Interesting that you cannot see it.
Not the least bit surprising given your inability to learn, but interesting none the less.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm seeing all these comments about evolution not being proven and what not and I'm just like,

"whaaaaaaat, you can't be serious."

So first off evolution has been proven, quite a bit actually.
Just not on the larger scale, however, it's a proportional thing so it doesn't have to be tested large scale.

What you might be referring to when you say evolution is "genesis via evolution".
Because that is what isn't proven, can't say how long it'll be before it is though.

Here ya go, I only need this one link you can do the rest of you research yo-self.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

Remember that this type of evolution is proportional,
to say that it's false is like saying I can drive 60 miles in 1 hour but not 120 in 2 hours.
Enjoy your debating of genesis via evolution now.

(Psst, JayJayDee. Pssst, evolution is a fact! Have fun finding the cracks in that link I proof read the validity of the labs myself and looked at the recreations )

Sorry, not sorry.

Peace.

 

[JayJayDee]

Did I mention anything in my reply "24-hour"?

No, I i didn't. I didn't mention hours at all.

Sorry if I misread your comment....

You said......."Except that you are ignoring the verses that state each day, "And there was evening and there was morning..." ...which does mean a day is just a day, and not some warped apologetic excuse of some unspecified epochs.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." tell me me that each day is from sunset to sunset.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't mean years, decades, centuries or millennia."

So, yes I thought you were saying that each day had to be a literal day of 24 hour period.

The fact that there was "evening and morning" simply meant that there was a beginning and end to that "day".

So you saying "24-hour day to me, is simply attacking a straw man.

The straw an is yours as I see it.

And I have asked you a very simple question to you in my last reply:

What do an "evening" or a "morning", as it being used in 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31 mean?

"And there was evening and there was morning...", mean one day, not one thousand years.

You have dishonestly ignored "And there was evening and there was morning..."

I have honestly explained that one "day" has several meanings in scripture. Did you miss that?

As to 2 Peter 3:8, it has nothing to do with Genesis 1. This is like you poster of a kitten, and you say it is "coffee mug". Do I bloody care what stupid Peter write? I sure hell don't, because Peter's verse is unrelated.

Hmmmm...getting stroppy will not win you an argument.

Peter is explaining that God's counting of a day can be "a thousand years. It has everything to do with Genesis because God told Adam that "in the day" he ate from the forbidden fruit, "he would surely die". Adam did not live to be a thousand years old...he died at 930. No human has lived more than God's counting of a "day" in that instance, so it is very relevant.

You know, it is Christian like you that give me the image of Christian of being dishonest.

Dishonest? Why? Because you don't like my answers? I have backed up everything I said with the Bible.

Jesus and his apostles were viewed as dishonest too. The Pharisees even told Jesus that he got his power from the devil....what's new? (John 15:18-21)

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry if I misread your comment....

You said......."Except that you are ignoring the verses that state each day, "And there was evening and there was morning..." ...which does mean a day is just a day, and not some warped apologetic excuse of some unspecified epochs.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." tell me me that each day is from sunset to sunset.

"And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't mean years, decades, centuries or millennia."

So, yes I thought you were saying that each day had to be a literal day of 24 hour period.

The fact that there was "evening and morning" simply meant that there was a beginning and end to that "day".




The straw an is yours as I see it.



I have honestly explained that one "day" has several meanings in scripture. Did you miss that?



Hmmmm...getting stroppy will not win you an argument.

Peter is explaining that God's counting of a day can be "a thousand years. It has everything to do with Genesis because God told Adam that "in the day" he ate from the forbidden fruit, "he would surely die". Adam did not live to be a thousand years old...he died at 930. No human has lived more than God's counting of a "day" in that instance, so it is very relevant.



Dishonest? Why? Because you don't like my answers? I have backed up everything I said with the Bible.

Jesus and his apostles were viewed as dishonest too. The Pharisees even told Jesus that he got his power from the devil....what's new? (John 15:18-21)

There is a topic to this thread - ID and whether or not it is testable.

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm seeing all these comments about evolution not being proven and what not and I'm just like,

"whaaaaaaat, you can't be serious."

I am very serious.

So first off evolution has been proven, quite a bit actually.
Just not on the larger scale, however, it's a proportional thing so it doesn't have to be tested large scale.

That is right up there with "if a little is good, a lot must be better"......it's a lousy principle!

What you might be referring to when you say evolution is "genesis via evolution".
Because that is what isn't proven, can't say how long it'll be before it is though.

How about never?

Everything I have read on the subject points to evolution being a colossal fraud, based on biased interpretation of "evidence". No one can't prove that organic evolution ever took place.
Were you there to observe all these millions of beneficial mutations that resulted in all these fortunate results? Was any human? It is all speculation...nothing more.

Without eyewitnesses, all you have is circumstantial evidence.....which is subject to the leanings of the ones examining it. It is supposition about what "might have" taken place, but no one knows for certain, so how can it be called a fact. Ever been in a court of law and listened to those who use circumstantial evidence to try to pin something on someone who is innocent? It can be very convincing.

Here ya go, I only need this one link you can do the rest of you research yo-self.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

Remember that this type of evolution is proportional,
to say that it's false is like saying I can drive 60 miles in 1 hour but not 120 in 2 hours.
Enjoy your debating of genesis via evolution now.

Thank you...I just love it when people post their proof.

Now tell me where in all those thousands of generations that these bacteria transformed themselves into anything other than bacteria. What you have here is adaptation within a "kind"......which has been described as "micro-evolution" but is really only minor changes in an organism to facilitate a change in their environment.

To quote from your link......

"But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski."

OK "something dramatic" seems to be an overstatement here. Pardon me whilst I quell my excitement!
Adaptive changes to accommodate a "second nutrient" must mean that the second nutrient was available to them in order to adapt to it.

Like the Galapogus creatures.....they adapted to a different food source than what was available to others of their species on the mainland, but they remained true to their "kind". These bacteria remained bacteria.

(Psst, JayJayDee. Pssst, evolution is a fact! Have fun finding the cracks in that link I proof read the validity of the labs myself and looked at the recreations )

Sorry, not sorry.

LOL.....Nice try...thank you for playing......you scored 0

 

[JayJayDee]

There is a topic to this thread - ID and whether or not it is testable.

No Bunyip, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not "testable" any more than organic evolution is testable by human means. You cannot test for something that took place millions of years ago with no reliable eyewitness testimony. Since no human was around to observe or to record the millions of 'creation' events, and we cannot duplicate them, or even produce the missing pieces of the supposed "chain" linking all living things.....we each have a belief system to which we adhere and trust the ones who promote it.