Evolution.

[The Poona of Peshwa]

No, it's not far-fetched at all, unless you consider the overwhelming fossil and molecular evidence, of course.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by BlackMetalWhiteGuy

To avoid confusion about this, I want to point out that I'm stating that all mutations occur by chance, while the factors determining which mutations survive are based on probability.

cheers mate. an important clarification.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by derek

Creationism in itself is reasonable enough. I find it funny that people are offended by it, I reckon it speaks more about them than the creationist. The problem lies in naming the said creator.

The greater problem is in calling it science. "Intelligent Design", i.e., the coy campaign to keep "God-talk" to a wink short of silent, proves this. What people are typically upset about is this which is the most popular, perhaps the ONLY, attempt to introduce non-science into science classes at high school...and desired explicitly because of an ideological conflict with the basis of biology (evolution), not because they just think it's just such clearly vital science that it should be taught---it evolution wasn't taught, or even discovered, there would be no massive ID movement in the US.

It's easy to think people are annoyed by the incoherent blabber and pathetic arguments of creationism, but typically that doesn't bother them any more than 'alien abduction' belief...insofar as it's a private idiocy it's just laughable, all that people are worked up over is the misrepresentation of it which is counterproductive to education, and an insulting misleading claim as to what constitutes science.

This at least is the overwhelming consensus of the popular skeptical community leaders I've heard speak on the matter: they're mostly not anti-theists, just anti...deceptive lies about science.

[The Poona of Peshwa]

PBS's NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial was a very good summation of the intelligent design "controversey".

[razoredge]

Ironically many believers also understand evolution. The two extremes should not tie all to a stereo type, as is typically the case. Science doesnt have it all tied down yet, neither does the mysterical world of creationism.

Thats why I think we came from another place...... lol

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Originally Posted by razoredge

Ironically many believers also understand evolution. The two extremes should not tie all to a stereo type, as is typically the case. Science doesnt have it all tied down yet, neither does the mysterical world of creationism.

Thats why I think we came from another place...... lol

Many Creationism / ID supportors don't understand evolution, they just think they do. If people generally understood evolution as well as they thought they did, I wouldn't hear questions like "well if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and my ex-girlfriend wouldn't have some idiot from her evolutionary anthropology class ask "if bipedalism is so adaptive for humans, why don't tigers do it, since they're endangered?"

Then there was that guy on the Colbert Report who knew evolution was a lie because the entire concept of evolution (according to him) was "a group of monkeys fell out of a tree, lost all their hair and started walking upright and talking." Obviously this is completely stupid and not at all what scientists actually believe, but it was true as far as he knew and he didn't feel any regret in using this logical fallacy to justify his believe in Creationism, because it apparently makes more sense.

[razoredge]

If scientists understood evolution as good as some think they do they would stop exploring it. What they have now is a few bones, & fossils that have at times been mistakenly dated, some "reconstructions" and widely accepted "suggestions" that they were human ancestors, only later to be found to be more closely resembling apes. So they start over again, with another small pile of bones and make more suggestions, often disagreeing amoungst themselves. Homo sapien still pops out of the blue and scarely resembles their suggested ancestral reconstructions. Also if scientific types were as smart as they claim they wouldnt take some satire on a quick sum of their theories so much to heart that they actually thought the rest of the sceptical world actually believed it was all that simple........

Should I stock up on beer and chips to prepare for the sideshow for stating that which is not my fault ?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by razoredge

If scientists understood evolution as good as some think they do they would stop exploring it.

this suggests to me you have very little appreciation for all the research on evolution in the last 150 years, even if you do, unlike many people, at least understand what evolution does entail.

let's stipulate for sake of argument that no fossils exist or have been found. I for one don't care about archeology, so that's just a great way to save myself a boring debate.

what have you to say about the molecular evidence? (something which I predict many more people on this forum are schooled in than geology/paleontology/archeology/dating methods/etc.)

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Originally Posted by razoredge

If scientists understood evolution as good as some think they do they would stop exploring it. What they have now is a few bones, & fossils that have at times been mistakenly dated, some "reconstructions" and widely accepted "suggestions" that they were human ancestors, only later to be found to be more closely resembling apes. So they start over again, with another small pile of bones and make more suggestions, often disagreeing amoungst themselves. Homo sapien still pops out of the blue and scarely resembles their suggested ancestral reconstructions. Also if scientific types were as smart as they claim they wouldnt take some satire on a quick sum of their theories so much to heart that they actually thought the rest of the sceptical world actually believed it was all that simple........

Should I stock up on beer and chips to prepare for the sideshow for stating that which is not my fault ?

One of the big problems facing science is that the fossil record is extremely bare, in comparison to the amount of life that actually flourished. Additionally, dating hasn't always been a fool proof practice because like any other form of science, it can be proven false. In fact, no theory can even be accepted as scientific, unless stated in a way that research could prove it false. This is why the psychological predictions of Freud are considered pseudo-science, as opposed to actual science. Radio dating on the other hand, is something that can be physically measured and the same applies to molecular science. However, difficulties associated with figuring out how to accurately measure them will in all likelihood produce error that may later be recognized and controlled for with better technology and research that better applies a more accurate understanding of the laws of physics. Consequently, nearly all fields of science are always under review, which is an essential part of the scientific process. If we honestly expected every explanation to be 100% accurate the first time through, it wouldn't be science, now would it?

[razoredge]

I'm not in disagreement that we most likely evolved and I dont believe in a supreme being, however Im not in total disagreement with them either. Seems both sides come up with interesting evidence from time to time.

I still find man to be a phenom compared to all other species, if science didnt as well, they would not have dedicated so many decades trying to figure it out and still not able to explain it. We go from little apes to highly efficent environment consumers and the Sabretooth Tiger becomes the stupid house cat thats sitting here annoying me now.