Ruk

If you are going to post an "anti-evolution" link, then I'd come up with one that is a lot better than this. This film is almost hilarious with the number of obvious flaws it has. The sad part is that it probably convinces folks who have little or no understanding of science, let alone logic. For example, the film starts off by interviewing various folks about evolution. When they start using phrases like "probably" or "I'm not an expert" he concludes its a sure sign evolution is false. But change the topic, to something like "how do cell phones work" and ask the same people, and you'll get the same phrases back in reply. Does this mean that cell phones are just figments of our imagination, or could it be that while most people have a basic understanding of their function, few know the intricate details? Evolution is no different. Schools teach the basic premise, but rarely go into the specifics. And then of course the film has outright lies, such as stating that neaderthal man was just an old guy with arthritis (We have far more than just one sample, not to mention DNA showing distinct differences as well http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html) or that there are no transitional fossils (when in fact we have several thousand as Cameron says we should have!). Also funny is them comparying a biplane to a jumbo jet and stating its preposterous to think one came from the other, when in fact today's jumbo jets ARE derived from the knowlege learned when we were flying only multiwinged aircraft such as biplanes. The errors continue throughout. So please, if you are going to be anti-evolution, at least be honest about it and use real facts to support your argument and not obvious lies or outrageous logical leaps.

FYI: New season (third) of the 4400 starts Sunday, June 11. Two hour premiere begins at 9/8C pm. USA network will be airing a 13 episode marathon just prior to the two-hour premiere for those of you who haven't seen the show before or need a refresher course.

You know something... I'd hate to be an identical twin in the Galactica universe! *lol*

Those writers are funny! Anyone else remember this line? Chief: How do you know I'm not a cylon? Priest (Stockwell): Because I'm a cylon and I don't remember seeing you at any of the meetings.

I like Father's Day. Its nice to see Doctor Who using his time machine in a way that most of us would think of using it... to visit people and places that are personally important to us. Its also an interesting episode because the Doctor's plan to save the day ultimately fails, leaving the solution to the simple common folk that he values so strongly. Its a good character building episode in my opinion.

Yeah, I know thats the "official" explanation the cylons gave (you trust everything they say? After all, they just said "hey, we'll leave you alone and go our separate ways" in the same episode). But I just am saying I don't buy it and its likely its another lie, and the cylons knew they were there all along. The whole "we'll leave you alone" and the year interlude I think was a trick to do just what happened... lure the colonists into a state of false security. Its not the first time this has happened if we recall. Remember, the Pegasus found the Galactica by following the cylon fleet ... which was conveniently following the Galactica. The conclusion is obvious... the cylons have ALWAYS known where the fleet was. How they act on that information is what has changed as they experiment. And lest we forget, the whole plan of settlement is one supported by Baltar, a known cylon operative... While he didn't think of the plan itself, his #6 cylon ghost recognized it as just what the cylons wanted.

I don't think its a dream sequence, and the idea of such would be a huge mistake by the producers in my opinion and turn off a bunch of fans. In any case, I see nothing incompatable about the priest's statement. For one thing: a) it could be a simple ruse to put the humans off their guard. Worked pretty well too... one year without contact and they were caught again with their pants down. One thing to remember... there are other cylons in the fleet. I don't think the cylons were 100% truthful in saying they only discovered the new colony by accident. I think they likely knew they were there all along, and just were patient to see how things would progress. Attacking too soon would just continue the chase they've seen for the previous year. Or b) its perfectly true, which is why the Cylons didn't just blast the colonists to hell the moment they found them, but instead decided to capture them. After all, Unfortunately while I'm shocked too, I think I can see some of the reasons for this. I bet next year we'll have a bunch of "Lost" style flashbacks, detailing much of what we missed in the ensuing time... why Starbuck and Tigh are buddies now.. the exact reason for Apollo and Starbucks falling out, etc.

The problem is that scientists aren't going into your churches and telling you how you should teach the Bible. Creationists however ARE going into science classes and telling us how we should teach science!

Carter has made an appearance in Atlantis. Do imaginary characters count though? If so, we also saw Gen. Hammond in the episode with the misty life forms powering the gate. Just curious, but was it ever explained in that episode why they could use that gate to jump back to Earth, when supposedly the Atlantis gate is the only one given access? And of course the show "Atlantis" has had several scenes of action back on Earth and in the SGC. I don't know of any "SG1" shows however that jump to scenes of life away in Atlantis. And when her character first appeared she was played by a very different looking actress with blond hair! Its always funny when they change roles. Weir's boyfriend "Simon," is played by the same actor who played one of the Tolan that SG1 rescued. ;)

You seem to imply that using the word THEORY weakens the idea. If you don't have the intelligence to understand the difference in scientific usage versus common usage of a simple term and what the word "theory" implies when used in science, then why in the world should I give you credit with understanding what the Theory of Evolution actually means and why it is flawed? If simple definitions stump you, I have no hope you'll comprehend more advanced ideas.

Sadly it doesn't look like the Christmas invasion is considered part of the first season. Given that it features the new doctor, I'd say logically it shouldn't be considered S1 anyway. Now the quesiton is, if SciFi picks up S2, will they air the 5 minute Thanksgiving telethon prelude?

Romulan Cmdr. Tomalak That used to be my alias on several old MUSE games. Loved that character.

I think you'll find that all public schools still teach evolution even if they also teach intelligent design. Generally however public schools teach evolution very poorly, only casually mentioning it. Most schools don't want some creationist coming in and arguing with them. Our students suffer as a result. Your own misconceptions about what evolution show me you were never "taught" what evolution truly is. If man is best suited for survival, why are there still other animals? This statement is just a logical leap waaaay off the charts. Evolution certainly doesn't predict that the end result is one species. It only predicts that species which aren't able to adapt to changing conditions may die off. Our own species depends on others for survival. Cooperation and dependency are valid strategies and seen throughout the world among different species. In any case, you totally misunderstand evolution if you believe that humanity is any more evolved than a dog or other animal. We are all equally evolved for our surroundings. Dogs have adapted to their current situation the same way humans have. Breeds that didn't are now extinct. Has the missing link been found? Several times. We've discovered thousands of fossils that satisfy scientists. But of course anytime an evolutionists places a new discovery on the chart, creationists point to the new gap between it and the previous one. However fossil evidence is no longer the only way to judge evolution. Genetic drift has fully supported what we've seen in the fossil record, with apes and other mammals having the expected diversity in their genetic codes we'd expect. Are people walking out of the jungle who were apes yesterday? Doesn't work that way, so no. The apes we see today are NOT what we descended from in any case, but just as evolved through the ages from a common ancestor. So we're left with a choice between theories and no real evidence to support either, so why not teach both as theories? There is ample evidence supporting evolution which is why its considered science. Nothing we observe about the history of our planet makes sense unless put in the framework of evolution. As yet we have not discovered one piece of evidence refuting evolution! Intelligent design on the other hand has its whole basis in a negative (what we don't understand must thus have been a result of a creator)... and as such has been disproven several times. Founders pointed to things like the Bombadier beetle and the development of the human eye as being "too complex" and thus designed. But both have since been readily explained. For any idea to be considered a true "theory", it must not only explain the past, but also predict the future. Evolution does so... as it predicted things like super-virus developing that are resistant to anti-biotics which we see today. What predictions does intelligent design make? Nothing.

I'm getting really tired of the gimmick where the pre-credits sequence is what happens at the end of the show and the rest is all flashback where you find out how they got to that point. I was complaining about the very same thing recently. Time to think of a new story telling device.

BSG is simply put the best sci-fi on TV right now in my opinion.