And talk about dishonest: so you don't think that by now some evolutionist God haters like yourself, if seeing fruit flies finally evolve after what now would be much more than 600 generations, would say, "OH LOOK THE CREATIONISTS ARE WRONG DARWIN IS RIGHT SEE THEY'VE FINALLY EVOLVED!" Every second that passes with no demonstration of evolution or claim IS CURRENT INFORMATION. You saying, "Oh but an evolutionist has to do a new study in this unspecified time I won't give and then it will be okay and then I'll believe." Talk about dishonest.
It's been how long now since Darwin presented his ripped off twisted version of Blyth's theory and still no evidence of evolution and you're still resisting the truth guys? You're really that full of stubborn bitterness? You're really that prideful? All you want then is endless arguments, that's your way of punishing God is to try and wear out those who speak the truth in his name. In the end, you will be forever worn out, always desiring sleep and never getting any.
And wow, did you not hear about the millions of years old rocks that were used as standards for all other dating methods being admitted to be only 700,000 years old? *Shakes head*. Evil, dumb, greedy, liars. Get real jobs and stop taking grant money bribes.
Given that you edited your post, I'll respond to the specific edits, but really, there's no reason for you to have copy-pasted your original response to Alzael, nor to selectively modify his post either.
First off, if you take nothing else away from this conversation, understand that atheists are not "God haters". Atheists, as a rule, do not believe in gods of any sort, and it is irrational to hate something that you don't believe exists. I think you would find that if atheists as a rule hate anything, they hate the way in which Christian believers and other theists presume that their religious beliefs are correct despite being completely unable to find out for sure until it's too late to do anything about it.
Now, regarding the fruit fly study, I've since located an ABC news report of a breakthrough made at the University of Connecticut which showed that making a change to a single gene resulted in a dramatic increase in the life span of a fruit fly
. According to an abstract in Science News
from 2000, this not only doubled the average lifespan of the fruit fly from 37 days to 70, but it increased their maximum life span by 50%. Again, this completely contradicts the conclusion in the article linked by qwan_lee (which I noticed was no longer available on that blog (the original is available here
on ICR), namely that "the experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes?mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature?merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies.". So we have another contradiction between the conclusions of the article's writer and the actual science involved.
I would say that both the gene changed that so dramatically increased the lifespan of fruit flies and the mutation which resulted in E.coli being able to metabolize citrine demonstrate that it is indeed possible to get beneficial changes from genetic changes. Given that this is a key part of the theory of evolution, I would say that these studies stand as evidence that Christian creationist beliefs are flawed in conception and that evolution by selection is a fact of life.
Regarding the rest of your post, it seems that you're attributing your own bile and bitterness against atheists and "evolutionists" to them, the well-known phenomenon of "projection". Let me clue you in on something, I get more "exhausted" from eight hours a day of working with computers for a living than in refuting the bad arguments posited by creationists. I don't do it to "punish" some deity (I don't think sad deity would even notice, it would be like an ant "punishing" me by arguing against other ants), I do it because those creationists are wrong, and it's my duty to show it.
And as for those rocks you mentioned that only ended up being 700,000 years old, you trumpet this as if it disproves the whole concept of radiometric dating. It does not. What that really means is that someone made a mistake, and then caught it and corrected it after the fact. That is what science is about, finding errors in our understanding of things and correcting them. That's one of the reasons we use different methods of radiometric dating, because it provides us a cross-check in case someone screws up.