Jesus christ. Have you ever even studied Egyptian or even GREEK mythology? What the hell do you think Ra and Poseidon were for?

jesus christ climbtree you are either dumb as hell or a troll

life started 4 billions years ago, there was plenty of time for humans to evolve out of prokaryotic bacterias,

human beings appeared around 200k years ago but they already lacked a functional appendix so humans didnt loose the appendix because they already didnt have it.

and evolution doesnt works with isolated traits and if you think that you should crack open a biology book. evolution works by random mutations and how those mutations help certain organisms to survive better and reproduce. so multiple mutations may be selected simultaneously and therefore its not like one thing develops at a time i.e. "heh how much time you need to develop a penis and then an eye....."

i guess a lot of them would overlapor something.

[...]i'm a bit iffy with dinosaurs as well though so maybe i'm just a loon

shut up i already covered both your points and i already said i didn't care about the appendix, only that 30,000 generations is a really long time. notice how the only new trait in the bacteria was citrate metabolization though (30,000 generations for that, maybe only another 10k for a flagellum or something).

furthermore it's mostly flintstones fans and fundamentalists that believe dinosaurs and humans lived together. and the tin lids (but they were flintstones fans).

So basically, humans lived in caves, suffered horrible diseases, experienced agonizing deaths, and had very low life expectancy for that amount of time until one day god decides to show up with Jesus Christ on the cross.

This is not true.  The tribal peoples in the world who still live the way they had for thousands of years (hunter-gathers) don't suffer horrible diseases, agonizing deaths and low life expectancy.  Unless that was a joke.

the article wasn't talking about natural selection causing the bacteria to evolve but simply chance anyway, so environmental pressures are moot.

likewise i don't think the humanoid population would have been big enough to support rapid changes anyway

Well some of them do, look at those people in africa

This is not true.  The tribal peoples in the world who still live the way they had for thousands of years (hunter-gathers) don't suffer horrible diseases, agonizing deaths and low life expectancy.  Unless that was a joke.

But hey! this has nothing to do with the topic anymore so I'll ask something that I have been wondering (if someone minds answering):
Does thought and knowledge through time evolve, just like living beings do? or does it develope differently? because if it is the latter, then the future of humans would not depend on the common evolution (or would it?), meaning that the theories of evolution would at best tell us how we have come to be like what we are, but that's about it.... wouldn't it?

It depends what people.  Not the Mbuti of the African rainforest.  Lots of people like the Bushmen, for example got fucked when settlers came and shit.

Of course and now people don't die of volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, because evolution made us immune to them

Does this experiment lead to conclusive evidence that the bacteria will become an entirely new species? As far as I can tell it gained a new trait, which is essentially micro evolution (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)? I believe that creationists biggest qualm is that man came from apes or something similar to that because it disputes the fact that man was created in God's image. What are some examples of intermediate fossil examples of preman?

wow (Click to reveal)

I have an interesting story to tell.

Back when I was still a Christian, I used to go to the local nondenominational church. One sunday, a minister who was studying to become a physics teacher was talking about how Christianity and science do not necessarily refute one another. He goes off on a slew of not-very-funny science jokes, wasting about an hour of our time (granted, this is what they do best) and finally arrives at his point. The topic of the Big Bang. He goes over several scientific theories as to how it arose (random particle collision, etc.) and contrasts it with creationism as presented by Genesis. He says something to the effect that Genesis does not refute creationism (a day to god is not necessarily 24 hours blah blah blah whatever -- he doesn't even mention why Genesis says BIRDS are created before LAND). Then he wastes more of our time, anecdotes about conversations with his scientist colleagues, etc. But here is how he ended:

"What would you RATHER believe? That our universe was created by some random particle collision? Or that an Intelligent Being set all this up to happen?" Noting the circumstances and how he presented his speech, he actually wanted us to think the latter.

I think that is the fundamental fallacy of religion at large. Religion is a lie, crafted in good nature, but nonetheless a lie to ourselves and our reason. It's just a convenience. Creationism and intelligent design, no -- they are not yet PROVEN ABSOLUTELY FALSE, so even the most diehard of scientists have to put faith in their own founding postulates. But faith on these grounds is far more reasonable than blind faith in religious dogma. This topic has thoroughly shown that evolution DOES EXIST. Where is the hardcore evidence that proves GOD EXISTS.

Ask yourself -- are you a Christian because you voluntarily made a reasonable choice to be one? Or are you a Christian simply because that's how you were brought up? Finally, what reasonable God would delight in your 'faith,' if you are of the latter?

We have common ancestors, who ever said we came from apes? Many, many people have this mistaken mind set. Though, I do get your point. It's pretty tough to discard evolution, considering all the evidence that backs it up.