[My2Cents]

More evidence that the Darwinists are mainly interested in doing away with the notion of God.

[narby]

More evidence that the Darwinists are mainly interested in doing away with the notion of God.

No. Only evidence that people with agendas will seize on any old subject that promises to generate emotion.

The creationists seize on the ID philosophy to disguise their agenda, and atheists seize on evolution to promote theirs.

The only good thing that's come out of this fight is an added emphasis on evolution studies in the last year, which has seriously added to our understanding of how it works via new microbiological evidence. While the IDers are crowing about their latest work of fiction sold on the 700 club, real scientists are decoding the human and primate genomes and discovering how they work, and how the genome itself evolves.

[MindBender26]

My only questions are:

1. Since there is no doubt among people with an IQ above 60 that ID is just a disguised reiteration of Creationism,
2. IDers often admit it is simply regurgitated Creationism,
3, IDers often lie to the media and in the Dover case and to the courts about the real Creationist basis for so-called ID.
4. Is it OK with God that you all lie about the origins of ID?

Final question, for 10 bonuus points....Isn't there some commandment about "false witnessing?"

[Texas Eagle]

More evidence that the Darwinists are mainly interested in doing away with the notion of God.

Amen. Not that they'd ever admit it.

[RunningWolf]

More evidence that the Darwinists are mainly interested in doing away with the notion of God.

The posts in this thread only give that more weight, some eloquent others thuggish, but the intent is the same.

Wolf

[Sun]

Fossil theory debunked:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
(If you are in a hurry, just read Page 2, please)

THEN read this:
Fig. 3 (above) has protostomes and deuterostomes, the most basic divisions of animals, supposedly splitting over 1.2 billion years ago, but there are no recognizable forms in the fossil record until they all suddenly appear about 540 million years ago. Why are there no fossilized ancestors? Evolutionists try to explain this away phenomenon, and give the following excuses for the lack of ancestral forms:

1. There were evolutionary ancestors before the Cambrian Explosion, however they were all soft- bodied animals and thus could not be preserved as fossils. The “Cambrian Explosion” is not actually the sudden evolution of animals, it just marks the first evolution of hard shell and bone parts which can be easily preserved.

Counter-argument: Obviously skeletons and shells are easier to preserve in rock than soft- flesh. However, this is a ridiculous argument because imprints of soft-bodied animals are very commonly preserved as fossil remains very commonly in the fossil record. Jellyfish, sea squirts, plants, sponges, and even bacteria are extremely common in the fossil record. A very good portion of the Cambrian Explosion fossils were soft-bodied animals, so why even argue that the soft-bodied predecessors couldn’t have been fossilized? Furthermore, much of the "Precambrian" rock, which would have been able to preserve these “missing ancestors” is actually very good rock for preserving delicate soft-bodied fossils. This argument is totally bogus.

2. The Precambrian ancestors existed, but were too small to be preserved.

Counter argument: Similar to my above argument, small animals are very commonly fossilized throughout the fossil record. Even in the Cambrian Explosion fossils, very small organisms are not uncommon. How can one argue that the size of the fossil makes it unpreservable? If the animals were there, they would have been preserved. If the animals were preserved, they would have been found. Since they are not found, the only conclusion is that the supposed ancestors were never there. Regardless, studies of the necessary predecessors shows that they probably were not small. The proposed common ancestor of the 2 basic animal groups (protostomes and deuterostomes), thought to have existed about 1.2 billion years ago5, had a gut cavity, regulatory genes, appendages (for locomotion or something else), a complex eye, and even a heart with a fluid system6! This is not a microscopic primitive life-form.

3. The evolution was rapid so transitional forms didn’t have time be preserved.

Counter argument: You should be on the lookout for any arguments such as this, because they try to explain the Cambrian Explosion without ever touching on the problem of the complete lack of ancestral forms. Just like punctuated equilibrium, it is explaining away the data, rather than explaining the data. Rapid evolution or not, it doesn’t make any difference. When you get to this point, why not consider the possibility that as the evidence suggests, there were not predecessors? Perhaps purely natural evolution isn’t the answer? Is divine creation never a viable hypothesis? Why isn’t it? If one says it isn’t viable because there’s no evidence for it, then in this case, I can certainly say the same for an evolutionary explanation.

snippets from: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/fossrec.htm