>Because I don't think you understand the article. They
>DON'T have have proof. They are ASSUMING that since they
>share common genomic code that there must be a common
>ancestor. You don't like paintings, fine cars. It's all the
>same concept.

I understand the artice fine, and I also understand that it is far more scientifically valid than your supposed 'proof' of creation: "My point is that the fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is proof of creation" - talk about assumptions that don't prove anything. It's funny how you dismiss the Nature article, yet think your scientifically unfounded hand-waving argument somehow constitutes valid proof.

>It's like saying all cars evolved from the model T. No the
>ideas may have evolved, but each car is a creation. If we
>weren't the creators of our cars, buildings, whatever--by
>evolutionists' logic they would all be proof of evolution.
>You see all computers evolved from this Babbage Computer and
>then about blah years ago there was an event that caused a
>phylogenic split resulting in risc and cisc architectures...

No it's nothing like saying that; cars and computers don't replicate themselves and adapt to their environments - comparing living organisms and mechanical devices in this manner is an absurd analogy. Really, you need to drop this nonsensical argument.

>The "evidence" is all circumstanstial. There is no proof.
>They don't have the bacteria's common ancestor...and they
>sure haven't found man's.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for creation, let alone proof.

>That sense of the word says nothing about truth or
>fiction...like I said earlier, get a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster defines mythical as:

1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : FICTITIOUS, IMAGINARY

synonym see FICTITIOUS

- so GTFOOHWTBS.

Furthermore, by the defintion that you gave, your use of the word "mythical" to describe humans' common ancestor with other primates is incorrect, so your argument is wrong on multiple levels - way to go, dictionary boy. Also, your definition of mythical would mean that the bible represents "a primitive view of the world" - couldn't agree with you more on that one.

>Nobody has
>proved the bible to be false.

Of course they have - and have proven many things in the bible to be false. The bible is about as historically valid as the Illiad and Arthurian legend - the only reason you don't acknowledge this is willful ignorance.

>All that energy in sucrose and all we can get is a net of 36
>ATP/GTP molecules per mole. You mean to tell me there's no
>other process to match that effieciency, it certainly isn't
>very efficient. Sounds more like a decision rather than an
>evolutionary standpoint.

No, it sounds like a stupid decision for an all-powerful creator to make - are you calling God stupid?

>Only because I was going to also post about an experiment
>that showed a particle being in two places at once, but I
>couldn't find the link...so I removed omnipresent.

woulda, coulda, shoulda...

>From the computer's pov, which is what I said, a zero or an
>one are the only outcomes. Every qubit would have both
>outcomes already, so from the computer's pov it would know
>all the outcome...the principle is what I said it would
>posses.

You know, while you were so busy with all that dictionary stuff, you should've taken 2 seconds to flip over to the definition of omniscient:

- Function: adjective
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

- so unless all those quibit outcomes can tell you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop, it ain't omniscient. And it isn't working on the same principle either - note the definition referring to awareness, understanding, insight & knowledge ... raw data does not these things make.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude