Comments on: In the Beginning… http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:41:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: NZer http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-358911 NZer Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:28:09 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=14108#comment-358911 Nice video btw! Nice video btw!

]]> By: NZer http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-358910 NZer Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:19:22 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=14108#comment-358910 I was about to complain about the lack on EMBED code for the video too... If ID people want to win the media battle, these sorts of things need to be done better. Anyways, the embed code is available on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc I was about to complain about the lack on EMBED code for the video too…

If ID people want to win the media battle, these sorts of things need to be done better.

Anyways, the embed code is available on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc

]]> By: Robert Byers http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-358863 Robert Byers Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:47:15 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=14108#comment-358863 This biblical creationist thanks the thread author here for pushing design but insists that convergent evolution is not evidence for design. There is no convergent evolution from branches of the tree of life. Yes common design and yes like need produces like parts. yet convergent evolution has a history of drawing conclusions about biological relationships that are simply false. For example they say marsupials have same shaped creatures as placentals because niche forced mutation and selection on them to a like end. Yet in fact marsupials are just the same creatures as placentals with a pouch. A marsupial lion, wolf, bear, mole, mouse is just the same thing as elsewhere on the planet save for a few minor details due to the area they moved into after the flood. Not evolution upon some rodent like thing and presto same shaped creatures. Likewise this error is invoked by evolution in many orders etc of creatures. I believe Mr Berlinski also brought up about the likeness of the marsupial wolf with other wolves on the planet. He also seems to see it from some common design system yet the important point is that they are so alike. So why segregate? just accept minor adaptation options in biology before major adaptations from rejected mechanisms of evolution. If it looks like a horse its probably a horse. This biblical creationist thanks the thread author here for pushing design but insists that convergent evolution is not evidence for design.
There is no convergent evolution from branches of the tree of life.
Yes common design and yes like need produces like parts.
yet convergent evolution has a history of drawing conclusions about biological relationships that are simply false.
For example they say marsupials have same shaped creatures as placentals because niche forced mutation and selection on them to a like end.
Yet in fact marsupials are just the same creatures as placentals with a pouch.
A marsupial lion, wolf, bear, mole, mouse is just the same thing as elsewhere on the planet save for a few minor details due to the area they moved into after the flood. Not evolution upon some rodent like thing and presto same shaped creatures. Likewise this error is invoked by evolution in many orders etc of creatures.
I believe Mr Berlinski also brought up about the likeness of the marsupial wolf with other wolves on the planet. He also seems to see it from some common design system yet the important point is that they are so alike.
So why segregate? just accept minor adaptation options in biology before major adaptations from rejected mechanisms of evolution.
If it looks like a horse its probably a horse.

]]> By: niwrad http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-358791 niwrad Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:07:06 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=14108#comment-358791 Compliments Professor Sewell for your new ID book! I have always been convinced that no mathematician can consistently be Darwinist. I hope that your courageous example can attract other mathematicians towards the ID side. Darwin didn’t love math. Compliments Professor Sewell for your new ID book!

I have always been convinced that no mathematician can consistently be Darwinist. I hope that your courageous example can attract other mathematicians towards the ID side. Darwin didn’t love math.

]]> By: Granville Sewell http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-358695 Granville Sewell Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:45:16 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=14108#comment-358695 Barry, I tried to embed the youtube version of this video in my post, but the embedded script I copied and pasted from youtube was simply erased when I previewed or posted it. Maybe you can embed it, the youtube URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc Barry,

I tried to embed the youtube version of this video in my post, but the embedded script I copied and pasted from youtube was simply erased when I previewed or posted it. Maybe you can embed it, the youtube URL is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc

]]>