50,000 generations of E coli prove evolution wrong

Share this page!

Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.

The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.

  • If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
  • Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.

Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.

Example: Light speed for years has been claimed to be a constant. The problem is that we live in a gravity environment, and light does not always travel under the influence of gravity as travels in space. So we don;t know if light changes speed when there is no gravity around. But recently science has been able to:

So all this means is that the speed of light is no longer constant. This puts into question every book, paper, theory etc…. That is based on the speed of light being constant. All of this is because some people wanted to make an assumption about light when they did not have all the facts. And because that assumption fits nicely with the theory of evolution and brings into question the Biblical creation. But now since all that’s in question the tide has turned and everything science has assumed on the speed of light being constant is now in question.

Some of what this puts into question are:

  • How far stars and planets are away from us.
  • How old stars or planets are because a light year no longer applies when the speed of light is no longer constant.
  • Theories based on this no longer valid.
  • All papers and books based on this no longer valid.

All because someone decided to assume. Now the question is: How long until science decides to admit to being wrong and correcting all this? From what has been witnessed with evolution and correcting mistakes there, I suspect it won;t be in our lifetime. 50 plus years is the norm for evolution.

Here we have a couple of videos on this experiment where the atheists tried to make it sound like this was the greatest achievement of proving evolution. Well E-coli remaining E-coli actually proves what we creationists have been claiming for a long time.

1) Changes have limitations.
2) Evolution to the point claimed (single cell to all that we see) is not observable and is a lie aka fallacy.

So watch the videos if you can stand their long winded attempt to make the failure sound like a success. So much effort in lying to only say: There is not God.

Video

Video

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments