Huntsman: Earth not flat; Christie: Sun does not revolve around Earth

[ag]

I'd say the min was a B.S. in a science degree (e.g. engineering, physics, biology, etc....political science is not what I consider a "science")

I would never consider somebody, who holds a B.A. degree with a major in economics "an economist" just on the basis of that degree. Hell, I myself had a math major - this doesn't make me a "mathematician". I would suggest using the same policy for (natural) scientists. The liberal arts education is not designed to produce professionals, but "gentlemen" (and ladies), capable of further (possibly, professional) study.

[ag]

understood, but I'm not discounting those who didnt choose to pursue a graduate degree in a field, simply because having an advanced degree doesnt mean you have any more common sense....so, as long as you have a BS in a field of science (including math, biology, physics, etc), I consider you capable of abstract scientific thought.

I don't know what you mean by "abstract scientific thought" or the "common sense" and what does it have to do w/ any of it. The big chunk of natural (or, for that matter, social) science is knowing the empirical facts: without that, it is just math. There is no reason why an abstractly thinking individual might not conclude that if you drop an apple it would fly up to the Moon: in the abstract it doesn't contradict anything. Theologists, in general, are very capable of abstract thought. For that matter, even to properly understand the doctrine of Trinity one has to be quite ingenious at it ) This has nothing to do w/ science, though

[ag]

Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Wow! You sure show great understanding of biology. I am sincerely hoping, that by the time she is, say, in the fourth of fifth grade, my daughter knows a bit more about it then you do as of today: otherwise , I 'd be forced to find another school for her.

[ag]

ag, then how many millions of generations are required for vertical evolution?

The term "vertical evolution" is about as meaningless as it gets. There was nothing "vertical" in the process that created you from a fish.

The statement that only bacteria evolve from bacteria is true tautologically: by a definition given by biologists, ANYTHING that evolves from a bacteria can only be a bacteria (like anything that evolves from an animal can only be an animal - this is a definition, inherent in classifications made up by humans).  

Bacteria are extremely diverse. From a standpoint of a biologist, the difference between different types of bacteria (e.g., between the chlamydia and the spirochete that causes syphilis) might be bigger, than between you and an oak: in both cases we are talking, at the very least, about different phyla. In comparison, you and a worm in your garden or a shrimp you ate for dinner are close cousins.

[ag]

ag, pick any organism you want, single cell or multicell,  and run it through however many generations you want to run it through...let me know when it becomes something else

Well, let's just run one generation. You are not the same thing as your mother. Enough?

Every question you ask just makes one doubt: did you really graduate from high school? Or was it that sciences were not required wherever you grew up?

[ag]

correct me if I am wrong, but evolution states that somewhere along the line life formed and evolved into more complex organisms....I do have that part correct, that is the theory, right?  then form as many experiments that you'd like and see if an organism becomes more complex over time.

Evolution is direcitonless: it can lead to more complex organisms, or to simpler ones, depending on what's better suiting the environment. There isn't even much of an agreement on what's more complex: for one, a chimp is no less complex than a human.  In fact, considering that we've been separate lineages for a few million years, we are remarkably similar with chimps: if we were bacteria, scientists would, probably, need genetic tests to even tell us apart.

In any case, if a bacteria were to develop so much as a cell nucleus, it would be orders of magnitutde more shocking and harder to accommodate within our current theories of evolution than the joint second coming and public gay marriage of Jesus Christ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be for you ))

[ag]

dude, just make something change from one thing to another, doesnt matter if it is up or down

I've given you a perfect example: you are not your own mother - we got change in just one generation ) It's the rightly idiotic answer to an idiotic request. Until and unless you mange to formulate a question that makes sense, I don't think you should get any other answer.