No, I never hinted at anything of the sort. You are putting words into my post that simply are not there.
What I did say is that I doubt that evolution (one species evolving into another entirely different species)
is possible in an infinite number of generations.

In the context of the article
I suspect that every new generation of e-coli will will always be recognizable as e-coli.
I suspect that it will never become something that is not e-coli

My point with the number of generations is that thats a lot of generations to get that far and its still easily recognised as e-coli. So to get to a new bacteria is some number that i would not be able to write down (presuming it would ever happen). If thats what it takes for a relatively simple organism then how many more would it take for a dinosaur to become a bird.
Actually, all I am really saying is that to state that the article shows proof of evolution
is to stretch the evidence to fit your belief.
It happens this way with all "supposed" evidence for evolution that I have seen.

For example Pine cones have spirals that radiate in the same direction as snail shells.
Is this evidence that snails may have evolved from pine cones? It is if you follow the logic
of many evolutionary "proofs"!

I really don't know whether evolution is truth or not but I am not convinced by
"proofs" such as these. I am conviced that species adapt to their environment.




Am I? In what way?
Is that not the definition of evolution and adaptation
in the context of living organisms?

A moth adapts to its evironment and gradually changes from white to black
but it is still the same species of moth. That is what I classify as adaptation.
Over time dinosaurs scales become feathers and its arms become wings and
its bones become less dense and eventually it is no longer a dinosaur but a bird.
That is what I classify as evolution.
Am I on the wrong track here?
I always thought that that is what the THEORY of evolution was all about.

I differ here in believing that adaptation and evolution are not the same thing.



Sure, it certainly does that but If I said to you that creation is a THEORY would you apply that same rule?
I think the theory of creation also has many, valid "Scientifically" observable evidences in its favor, that it helps the actions of society and gives predictable results within certain constraints.

Here is just one "Scientifically" observable evidence
If archaeologists can pick up a stone and say, see the way its been chipped and worked to form this nice edge, designed as a cutting tool by ancient man. If they can conclude that the rocks shape shows evidence of design and therefore there must be a maker.
How can they then turn around and mock creationists for expressing that very same principle. That principle is either valid, or, it is not valid.
I see exquisite design in everything, all around me. I am forced to conclude that there IS a maker for what I believe to be a far stronger reason than the archeologist had.
If evidence of design prooves the rocks shape had a maker then the infinitely superior evidence of design in the universe and everything it it also prooves a maker.


How can anyone say that the THEORY of evolution dosn't need absolute proof to be believable and
then mock and insult the intelligence of a creationist for not needing absolute proof for believing in the principle of design necessitates a designer and a maker? Why dosn't the principle of "Seeing is believing" apply to evolution also?

Sorry not actually directing the "mock and insult" bit at you, it's more a general statement of observation.
Not that it worries me either, I see things the way I do and for the reasons that I have and if anyone thinks I am stupid for it then good.
I just see that many evolutionists will believe anything that a scientist tells them and not apply the same critical thinking that they encourage creationists to do.