[Aquinasfan]

why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.

Antibiotics kill off antibiotic-vulnerable bacteria, leaving the originally relatively small number of antibiotic-resitant bacteria to multiply.

[stremba]

Exactly. That's called natural selection.

[Right Wing Professor]

Antibiotics kill off antibiotic-vulnerable bacteria, leaving the originally relatively small number of antibiotic-resitant bacteria to multiply

Unfortunately, the falsifying experiment has been done many times, including once by yours truly. You start with a monoclonal culture - that is, all the bacteria are descended by asexual reproduction from a single bacterium. You expose the culture to a mutagen, and then look for resistance. The original number of antibiotic resistant bacteria was zero. The culture evolved into a fully resistant population.

[pnome]

"Antibiotics kill off antibiotic-vulnerable bacteria, leaving the originally relatively small number of antibiotic-resitant bacteria to multiply."

You do realize you just made the case for natural selection? So, you are saying that only the antibiotic resistant strains of, say, Staphylococcus survive. So those that do not have the resistance will die off. Until such time that all of our Staphylococcus is resistant to antibiotics.

Or are you trying to say that when "God" created the world, he made two kinds of Staphylococcus. One that was resistant to antibiotics, and one that was not.

As opposed to, you have a whole bunch of Staphylococcus and they are all being killed by antibiotics, until one or two are produced which carry a mutated gene for resistance. They breed, (because they are the only one's surviving) then pretty soon all you are left with are the offspring of the resistant newcomers.

Now, which is more likely to happen? God, or mutation? Further, which one can be proven and which one can't?