Evolution? How?

"Insufficient" only means that science did not have enough time in this short period of time to determine many of the mysteries of life. For those scientists to conclude a "creator" for the unknowns is no answer at all. They are just lazy. After all, Einstein's theory of relativity is a relatively new concept less than a century old.

Two thousand years ago, we didn't have any knowledge about chloroform, microbes, atomic weight, or mars. Progresss is now quicker with science and technology. Be patient.

These theistic evolutionists are basically another term for one type of IDer. Both believe that a superior intelligence is responsible for the intricate and complex forms of life that we see.

real life

Quote:

These theistic evolutionists are basically another term for one type of IDer. Both believe that a superior intelligence is responsible for the intricate and complex forms of life that we see.

By this post Then, according to the IDers theory of the case beingheard in Dover Pa, youve just lost.They argue against any association with theistic intervention.Thye dont wish to be caught up in a First Amendment hassle where the "free expression " and establishment clauses shall remain separate.

No. While there is progress, don't assume any conclusion.

But there are other schools of thought that are ID also. Some are agnostic, religiously speaking.

Quote:

But there are other schools of thought that are ID also. Some are agnostic, religiously speaking.

If, by that, you refer to Fred Hoyle or Mike Behe, both have stipulated that evolution works and is well evidenced. Hoyle is just an extra terrestrialist and Behe cant hide his religion well.

Even if the IDers lose, they will apepeal until it gets to the USSC. They are hoping that the fuzzing down of the establishment clause will be upheld by an increasingly "faith based" court.

God = no proof, no evidence.
Naturalism = progress.

Man may never find the answers to all the questions of naturalism, but that doesn't automatically default to ID.

Evolutionary theory was founded by Charles Darwin less than 200 years ago while this planet is almost six billion years old.

Scientists in many fields have found evidence that support evolution.

Creationists can't progress beyond "god."

Give science and evolution a few more hundred years, and the support for evolution will be overwhelming.

Since many of the evidence for finding the very beginning of earth has been destroyed, it may forever remain a mystery.

That's no reason to give up the hunt.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's what science does; it corrects past mistakes if found. Creationism on the other hand starts from an unknown one; it's pure conjecture. Creationists can't prove anything, because they rely on a 2000 year old fictional book called the bible, and that's all you have. If you study the origin of the bible, it's been written by many men over a long period of time with many revisions and deletions. The only thing consistent about the bible is the inconsistency of its message.

At least science tries to explain naturalism to the best of its ability. Nobody said all science is perfect, but that's the only field in which it tries to explain our environment. The bible only said one thing, "in the beginning..." that can never be proven. You may continue to ask your dumb questions that you can't even answer yourself. At least science tries to answer our existence.

You refute that there was a beginning....no matter the cause?

If matter, space, and time were created together, there may not be a beginning in the simple, temporal sense that you mean. Things may be much more complex. It's very foolish to try to apply human experience and intuition to this realm.

Just as it is very foolish to try to apply human experience and intuition to the realm of creation.

Charles didn't formulate the theory after seeing evidence aboard the Beagle.

Conclusion first, then look for evidence.

Charles Darwin simply recycled ideas his grandpa Erasmus had. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html

Charles didn't formulate the theory after seeing evidence aboard the Beagle.

Conclusion first, then look for evidence. No wonder you two get along so well.

Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.

real life wrote:

Charles Darwin simply recycled ideas his grandpa Erasmus had. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html

Charles didn't formulate the theory after seeing evidence aboard the Beagle.

Conclusion first, then look for evidence. No wonder you two get along so well.

Congratulations. Let me award you with this Prize for "Selective" Reading. You are now one of the many people who only read the bits of texts that suit their own ideals and ignore anything that is not relevant to or oposes their argument.

Even if Charles didn't formulate the theory himself, which he did, that doesn't change the fact that his Grandfather forumulated the Theory himself from evidence.

Quote:

Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.

Observation first. Conclusion second.

So even if Charles didn't, his Grandfather did.

You also forget that another man, an Alfred R. Wallace, came to the same conclusion that Charles did. The thing is, AR Wallace collected less information than Darwin did and he would have had a harder time getting evolution accepted.

Something new.

Tracks of Swimming Dinosaur Found in Wyoming
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 17 October 2005
02:56 pm ET

Tracks of a previously unknown swimming dinosaur have been found along the shores of an ancient sea in Wyoming, scientists announced today.

The tracks reveal an event 165 million years ago when a six-foot-tall, two-legged dinosaur waded into the inland sea and gradually lost touch with the ground.

"It was about the size of an ostrich, and it was a meat-eater," said Debra Mickelson, a University of Colorado at Boulder graduate student. "The tracks suggest it waded along the shoreline and swam offshore, perhaps to feed on fish or carrion."

Mickelson was scheduled to present her team's findings at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting this week Salt Lake City.

This is the first evidence for a swimming dinosaur in Wyoming, and also the first evidence for any dinosaur in the state during the middle Jurassic period, Mickelson said.

The search is on for bones, and no name has been issued yet.

"It is a dinosaur with bird-like characteristics and is a possible ancestor of birds," Mickelson said. "It lived in a much earlier time period and was very different from larger dinosaurs like T. rex or Allosaurus."

The tracks are embedded in ancient tidal flats of what's dubbed the Sundance Sea, which is thought to have covered Wyoming, Colorado and other parts of the western United States. It might have been warm and relatively shallow, much like the Gulf of Mexico is today, scientists say.

"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," Mickelson said. "The tracks show how it became more buoyant as it waded into deeper water -- the full footprints gradually become half-footprints and then only claw marks."

The tracks were found among traces of ancient crocodiles and marine worms.

How do they surmise it was a meat eater?

How do they surmise it had bird like characteristics?