PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

CREATION - Evolution Headlines ^ | 04/28/2003 | Illustra Media/CREATION - Evolution Headlines

[whattajoke]

Damn, that was a nice one.

"micro-plate-tectonics" begets "macro-plate-tectonics" is accepted but not so-called "macro-evolution."

...boxed into corner, what now?

[Right Wing Professor]

In fact the genetic evidence does show such trees.

The fossil evidence, since it's dependent on random and fortuitous events, is more episodic, but there's still plenty of evidence for gradual change.

[general_re]

How would you account for sea life fossils, etc in the mid US?

God put them there?

[whattajoke]

Apparrently it is not entirely convincing to PBS either, which, in spite of its overwhelming evolutionary bias, has produced the non-religious program you evos must classify as religious in order to discredit it.

Was it you who carped that someone hadn't read the original article? Because from your post, it appears to me you didn't get past the first sentence... This is not a "PBS produced video" as you claim.

Isn't it also you, Dataman, lord of spelling and grammar, who likes to always add "(sic)" everytime someone you don't agree with has a typo or misspelling? Well, "Apparrently" (sic), even you are not immune.

Also, to claim ID isn't religious is quite simply breaking a Commandment: "thou shall not bear false witness." It's an outright boldfaced lie... but you can pray for forgiveness at church tomorrow, it'll be ok.

[atlaw]

Heck, that's what I thought the answer would be. Funny how these fossils can both provide evidence and be no evidence whatsoever at the same time.

[atlaw]

Ok, explain to me how inland seashells are evidence that continents actually move?

[Dataman]

No, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis because evolution deals with EXISTING life forms.

Psst! Dimensio! You've had this explained to you before. Do you not get it or are you just refusing to admit defeat?

Here's how it works: Your brand of evo assumes entirely natural processes in its explanation of today's life forms. That assumption is called naturalism, also known as philosophical materialism. It just so happens that no matter what you call the philosophy, it holds to only the existence of matter and its motion. Therefore denied is the existence of a Creator. If there is no Creator, there are no miracles and life self-created.

Since self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction AND the law of biogenesis, it constitutes a miracle by definition.

Therefore abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

BTW, you've been asked this before and I don't recall you ever answering: Why do biology texts deal with the "primeval soup" and the spontaneous generation of life if it has nothing to do with evolution?

[general_re]

You know, it just occurred to me that there's really no evidence of transitional positions for the continents - all we have is extrapolation from their current movements. The fact that the continental plates nowadays bear some resemblance to the plates that made up supercontinents like Pangaea and Gondwanaland is really only evidence of a common designer. Clearly, there was no transition, and the positions of all the continental plates are and were products of special creation.

[Dataman]

Nothing Pseudo religious about it. Just documented fact.

What about your brand-x religion is documented fact?

[atlaw]

First you said: "And how can you go from a change within a species (micro) to a fish becoming a dog(macro)...or whatever the initial lifeform was, as there is no fossil proof of intermediary forms."

Now you ask: "Okay, how many different examples in the fossil record show change within a species? Since there are billions of life forms, you have to produce several. I will wait."

I must be missing something here. Are you now arguing that there is no evidence of what you term "micro-evolution", i.e, that there is no evidence of change within a species?

[atlaw]

Seriously. How are inland seashells evidence that continents actually move. Aren't they evidence of, say, rising and lowering sealevels? Or perhaps even evidence of a global flood?

[general_re]

I like it. I think I'll call my theory "Intelligent Drift", and demand equal time in earth science classrooms around the country. Maybe I can even get geology textbooks stickered with a disclaimer that plain old continental drift is "a controversial theory" and that "instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Should go like gangbusters in Alabama, I figure.