The head of the effort to bring back the sciences of rome was a holy men.

 If someone cherry picked some bits of information, and from that data made extreme claims, which came true, and then cherry picked some more information, and combining with the first bits, made more extreme claims, and those claims came true as well, and so on, then I'd would start to believe the overall theory that the person was claiming.  (Say that there are so many causals that buy games, that they will equal in sales as much as hardcore game sales.)

Evolution is predicted to need a large amount of time to make large amounts of changes.   Is there evidence for large amount of time having occurred?  Yes.  Long term radioactive decay, astronomy (galaxies hundreds of millions of light-years away), measurements of contenental drift.

Evolution has predicted that undisturbed geological strata will have a basic order of fossils in its layers.  Even when that layer has been shown to be folded over itself  (ie like a __  being squashed up into a 'S', but the fossils within the 'S' are from the same period.)

The only prediction that ID can claim is "If I find that I can't explain it myself, I'll believe without any actual evidence for it, that a 'higher power' (one that I can't explain how it came about either) must have done what I can't explain." 

 I have evidence for God's existence.  Read the book The Case For Christ and then we can talk.

Also there is a proof for the existence of God, that to my knowledge no atheist can dis prove, called The Transcendental Arguement for the Existence of God.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm

Well I'll be, never looked into that one. Apparently male Ligers are sterile, wheras female Ligers can reproduce, obviously with either a Tiger or a Lion as the males are sterile. It still holds that Ligers are non-viable offspring though, as the males are indeed sterile. Still that's a definate case of blurring the lines between the species, one of many.

Kazadoom,

 Questions are always good in science and I will not call you stupid. I may use the term ignorant but in the term it was meant to be used as. Basically you are talking about something you have not studied or studied with a biased opinion.

I will start with birds. Birds did not just appear one day and say hey I will fly. Nope infact feathers are found on dinosaur fossils from creatures that did not fly. Pteradactyls flew with webbed wings the same typed of webs that you find on ducks as far as we know today which could also support flight. The process is slow and it is chaotic meaning that many failed species have come about and gone. One rule of Evolution is that a species needs to fill a niche that is unique. Meaning if a mutation did aoccur it will most likely fail and not be able to continue hence the most basic and simple understanding survival of the fit. If you can't eat or get to your food you can not reproduce.

 Also with regards to the development fo lungs. Even today there are amphibous animals. Several billion years ago the world was a different place with massive tides that would go up and down over 100 feet in depth. This meant many sea fairing creatures would die when left stranded by a tide however if amphibous they would live and allow reproduction. As time went on creatures that were susceptible to this situation would begin to out number creatures that didn't in this area. Bacteria are very easily able to adapt to this type of situtation as they not only reproduce quickly and tend to eb more resiliatn. Which brings me to my next point.

 Tubercolousis, Syphilis, Ecoli strain number 57, Thrush(A mycoloid[AKA fungus]), Strep(rod based bacilli) and staph (Cocci or sphere shaped bacteris)species have changed significantly in the last 20 years to overcome the introduction of antibiotics. Viruses change even faster HIV has already evolved into several different strains that complecate treatment. Without an understanding of evolution this would of taken longer to notice.

 No while on topic this is Evolution versus creationism there really is no conflict unless you are a particular type of literalist. Evolution does not state a theory of Abiogenesis(though Darwin most likely felt that way). Evolution does not state the a theory about the creation of the solar system or the Universe. It states that species change and that the changes come and go with extincitions and enviroment.

I will say this about ID though. the left a C for ceationism when they changed the word doc. It isn't science because it is not testable or observable. Being a scientist does not make you atheist(in fact most are more religous than you would suspect).

 However creationism has some question to answer for me as it taught in Fundemental schools. The Universe is clearly not 5,000 or even 10,000 years old. Mankind is though(I veiw genesis as the start of the Jewish people and later christians and muslims). Creatures existed millions and billions of years ago. We see stuff every day that the  light  we see takes longer to get to us than that. We even have man made structures older than that. Writings that are older than that as well.

Half lifes are older than that and are very observable and even though this outside of evolution it is within the realms of creationism. If you don't believe in Half lifes of atoms than just forget about nuclear power being able to supply energy or even the sun being able to supply energy for that matter.

Finally many species show similiar characteristics and can not breed. Their DNA shows similiarites as well. Pygmy chimps are very close to humans even in behavior.

 At last none of this disproves the existence of God. Even the Big Bang theory does not. However most of interpretations of creationism are counter to Relativity, Atomic theory, Plate Tectonics(you know earthquakes and volcanoes) and Quantam Mechanics(the very same theories that allow me to comminicate to you through my computer). I say interpretation because that is exactly what is an interpretation of a translated text. One that I believe and studied and even learned some ancient hebrew and Koine to do so. Don't go down a super highway in an Ox Cart. I believe that god explains stuff at the level we can understand at the time and has given us the ability to understand and observe the world as it works.

to sqrl,

 I get ur point about name. I just said u dont always need a name to be aware of your existence or the existence of others. But I agree the use of name by dolphins is a good point.

So let's say, dolphins know they exist like we know. Let's say Dolphin know others exist like we know. It is like if we are similar Dolphins, except our capacity are quantitatively boosted compared to them (I assume better communication system, better intellectual capacity, better memory, better learning capacity)

then what is the main qualitative difference between human and dolphins (if there is one ...) ?

I believe it is our educationnal system that allow us to better understanding the world and to ask ourselve many conceptual questions. But, in this case, it suggests that first human, without the heavy education system (let's say humans before -10 000 bc) are a LOT closer to dolphins that we are now.

to all,

 Just about science history ; remember many civilisation have contributed to the "universal knowledge".
African egyptians, greeks, romans, arabs, chineses have all create a lot of the primary invention that, later, after the "Dark Ages", europeans will use to improve Science. I just want to underline arab and chinese people have made a lot of progress when many europeans people were still fighting each other like asshole.

 Excellent post, Redspear.

Kazadoom, look up some current animals that exist now.  Lungfish.  As the name implies, fish with lungs!!  Penguins.  Birds that don't fly but swim better than a lot of fish.  (or at least  the ones that they eat!)  Flying squirrels.  Actually gliding, of course.  But in some 10 millions of years, who knows?   

1st I thought you were a liberal
Next I thought you just hated things supported by religion
Now I believe you just really enjoy debating and arguing, and more so I have a suspection you like to play devils advocate. (which would explain why we clash so much as 2 people playing devils advocate present nothing but counter arguments.)

Note: don't take that as an acusation of not presenting facts

if we ever do come in contact with alienz, do you guys think that they would believe in 'our' god?

o_O

i highly doubt it.

Nah, i'm a more place blame where it looks like it lies due to what the numbers while blocking out things like "Common Sense".

After all isn't that what people who conduct expierments are supposed to do?

That and a tackle problems at the root person. Religion has likely stunted religion at times, though during that period, what they stunted seemed to be less then what they helped bring back and consequently grow.

Plenty of people and things stunt science though... governments, oil companies... even pharmicutical companys in some ways.

The root problem is that any group of people be it religion, government or girl scouts will squash science and many other things so long as they are big enough to do it and it benefits them.  

People in large groups that control everbody without much fear of recourse = bad news.