[Dataman]

fulfill their strawman purpose of it

Strawman #3.

their only interest is in tearing down their own strawman

Strawman #4.

Dimensio, the big problem with the theory of evo is that it is not convincing.
It is not convincing because the evidence does not fit the theory well.
It is not convincing because laws of nature have to be violated.
It is not convincing because its supporters deliberately ignore and suppress evidence.
It is not convincing because supporters cannot defend their own assertions.

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.

[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.

[Ichneumon]

It is not convincing because the evidence does not fit the theory well.

Oh? Where? Be specific and precise.

It is not convincing because laws of nature have to be violated.

So you say... Which ones?

It is not convincing because its supporters deliberately ignore and suppress evidence.

Yadda yadda yadda. Examples?

It is not convincing because supporters cannot defend their own assertions.

You're big on the broadly general accusations, and non-existent on the support, I see. What "own assertions" can we not defend, please?

Let's see if you've got anything better than empty accusations. Your reputation is riding on the quality of your responses.

And to avoid the usual creationist tactic of posting a link to a scattershot list of 234,858 attempts to throw things at the wall in the hopes that 1 or 2 might stick, give us your single *best* example, in your own words, in response to each of the questions.

That'll not only save everyone (including you) a lot of time, it'll let us dismiss you once and for all if your "best" examples are shown to be misfires.