PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

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

[PatrickHenry]

What good is a proto eye or a proto feather?

How Could An Eye Evolve?.

[Dataman]

What does that have to do with my religion?

If you don't understand what you said, there is nothing I can do to help.

[Aric2000]

No, dataman, you do NOT understand what I said.

It had NOTHING to do with my belief or non-belief in a religion.

I stated historical and geneaological facts, and then you claim that it is my religion.

Sorry, but facts do not a religion make.

You have no clue what my religion is, and I ain't gonna tell you, because you wouldn't have a clue of understanding about it either.

You are indeed clueless, your posts make that extremely obvious.

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent- it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a bargain for you. no checks please. Cash and in small bills"

From the notebook of Lazarus Long

Yes Dataman, in small bills please.

[carl in alaska]

"This proves nothing except that you are unable to comprehend the fact that because the theory deals with existing life forms, it has nothign to do with how those life forms came into being.

This class went beyond the emergence of the very first primitive single-celled life form and also covered the "evolutionary process" that could change this first life form into more complex early single-celled organisms. What I'd like to know is where you got the idea that I am "unable to comprehend" the theory of evolution. That is a rather harsh rebuke given to someone about whom you know essentially nothing. If there's something bothering you in your life that's making you angry, send me a private Freeper mail and maybe we can talk about it offline. God Bless you my friend.

Carl in Alaska (currently in California for a few more weeks)

[carl in alaska]

"Carl, even if you had a Ph.D. in Biology you would still be wrong"

When did I say that I'm never wrong? I just post my beliefs here like everyone else and I do not claim to be infallible.

[metacognative]

People who cannot see the difference between predictable physico-chemical tendencies toward equilibrium and the claims of darwinites [molecules to Man] exasperate me and I see no sense in continuing to point out the obvious: snowflakes are not living cells and comparisons are ridiculous.

[Not Insane]

I'm really, and honestly surprised that anyone would seriously argue this point, other than to point out that it is a generalization. Don't you remember all the articles and teaching about the gradual formation of our solar system; the gradual transformation of animals into new and distinct species? That's all thrown out now.

Knowledge trumps speculation - and we don't know what we'll know 20 years from now, that will trounce current "speculation."

[carl in alaska]

Sorry, I misread your post. I though it said "you could still be wrong", which has a different meaning. Now I understand what you meant. I've been losing some sleep lately over business with some lawyers (not a big deal really), and it's affecting my concentration.

[whattajoke]

People who cannot see the difference between predictable physico-chemical tendencies toward equilibrium and the claims of darwinites [molecules to Man] exasperate me and I see no sense in continuing to point out the obvious: snowflakes are not living cells and comparisons are ridiculous.

So you promise never to invoke the "tornado in a junkyard" garbage like so many creationist do? Thank you.

So you are saying that non living things (snowflakes) are capable of un-intellingent "design," but living, replicating cells are not? That sounds kinda backwards.

[Last Visible Dog]

Evolution within species is a scientifically reproducible reality.

Evolution between species is not.

Evolution as Cosmology has become dogma – a secular religion.

Observing micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Man has learned to fly – I guess that means we evolved from birds(or flying insects or bats or Rocky the flying squirrel) – if not, there is more to change than a single evolution cosmological theory. Evolution within a species makes scientific sense and is scientifically verifiable – this is not the case for macro-evolution.

Like I said, evolution as cosmology has become dogma and the adherents of this dogma often have very closed minds. Many orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists think that accepting the reality that there are problems with evolution as a complete cosmological theory means they have to accept there is a god – this is not correct and is pretty much a phobia.

Evolution as cosmology is theory – it could be true and it could be false. It has plenty of problems. The “big bang” was a turd in the punch bowl of the cosmological evolution party – a singular event that created the universe does not work in a cosmological evolution theory – unless you say “a miracle happen” then evolution took over (to be honest, that is the same theory those that believe in God hold: a miracle happened then the laws of nature were created). Exposing problems in one theory NEVER supports another competing theory (many orthodox evolutionist just don’t get this).

I choose to believe evolution is a piece in the puzzle – not the entire puzzle. There is more to this picture than currently meets the eye and I am not going to pretend theory is fact. For some strange reason, thinking like this makes orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists very uncomfortable.

[Last Visible Dog]

Another Point: You can not go into a truly intellectual debate with predetermined assumptions but evangelical atheists and orthodox evolutionists do just that. When debating cosmology these people assume there is no God therefore they build their side of the debate on a fallacious foundation. There is no scientific proof that God does not exist just as there currently is no real scientific proof that God does exist. When one assumes God does not exist – they are in error right out of the gate (and this does not prove God exists either)

Disclaimer: I am currently agnostic. I am not truly convinced there is a God but I am not ignorant enough to assume there is not a God. I also believe it is possible the intelligence that might hold the universe together has little in common with man’s concept of God.

[whattajoke]

perhaps each scientific journal article should contain the footnote, "Or maybe Goddidit." After all, He may have created you, me, and everything we see last tuesday, right? Scientists ignore the supernatural in their work because they simply must. What good would lab work be if the caveat, "It may be divine." was part of every single experiment?

Where are these "orthodox atheist" churches you speak of. Where's my tax break for "belonging?"

I don't feel the need to address your tired old Micro/Macro non-issue. Please feel free to go back through this very thread to read up on such issues. Especially the lovely example re plate tectonics and our new pet theory of "intelligent drift." I think that snarky little example proves something. If not, we'll continue.

What makes us "uncomfortable" is the continued efforts of religionists to get their supernatural beliefs into the public schools. Creationists, under any nom de plume, are liars and deception artists. Their beliefs don't make me "uncomfortable" in the least. Their methodology does. I'm still waiting for some media hungry Buddhist or Hindi or something in one of these states (AL, KS, etc) to push for his creation myth in their schools. I can't believe it hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and Icarus, Congrats on that flying thing... none of us other mere homo sapiens have quite figured it out yet. (seriously, I can't imagine where you got that snippet from.)

[balrog666]

Not-even-vaguely-uncomfortable placemarker.

[f.Christian]

History and science has been taken over by liberals and freaks --- evolution ... BRAINWASHING // INDOCTRINATION !

[longshadow]

lunatics-on-the-loose placemarker

[Lurking Libertarian]

Evolution within species is a scientifically reproducible reality. Evolution between species is not.

Observed instances of speciation.