Welcome to Gaia! ::

- A friend of mine named "solidsquid" on atheists.com wrote a huge article on evolution to try and help teach those that needed it. It is a lot of good info, but is still a lot. Here is the link if you're interested (he starts halfway down the page): http://www.atheists.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1277&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

- First, you must realize that all science is about is about making sense of what is around us and using actual data collected around us. Science doesn't have god not because it doesn't want it or is trying to disprove it, but because no god is there to experiment with and to get data from. Science isn't about one person's hypothesis though it starts from there, it is an ongoing 'testable' process that grows and changes with new data every day. It admits that it can't know everything, but tries to explain what it can when it can.

- Also, "just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory is not a good argument as scientific theories have plenty of people checking the proof, adding more proof, and trying to disprove where possible. If a theory doesn't stand up to the test of time, it is thrown out. A small peice of data that may seem contrary to a small portion of the theory doesn't make the entire theory wrong (usually). Most of the time the data will be incorporated into the theory if it is good scientific data and can be tested.

- Evolution itself is not abiogenetics. It does not explain how 'life' (as we currently define it) first happened, nor does it try. It simply describes a process that living organisms seem to take and to have taken throughout history. It's not just "Darwin's Theory" (though he put a lot into it) as one person can not make a scientific theory, nor was/is there only Darwin involved in making it and maintaining it thoughout time. Once again, if it's not testable, it's not science. And if it's a scientific theory, then it's not "just a theory."

- Please, add to this too...

If you look at the intro page for Gaia's Anti-Creationism Guild, they have a pretty interesting and funny little rant on it.

I like that argument the best.

Sounds like a lie to me... they used chemistry to prove it....

They took an educated guess at the chemicals that would have been in the Earth's atmosphere, judged by what chemicals we currently have in it, and then they put it to the test with some crazy-a** test-tube mojave. When the experiment was done, they had lipids and amino acids and all that great stuff, which is the basis for living things.

Voila, chemistry supports the theory of evolution.

Eeeh, as far as I've noticed, creationists do two things:
1. Argue against things which are not evolution (but they think it is).
2. Argue against misconceptions which they have about evolution.

The theory of evolution is nigh certain;
---------------------------------------------
1. There are variations in a population due to mutation.
Verified by simply looking around at any population of animals.
2. Environmental factors cause some variations to be more likely to successfully lead to reproduction than others.
Indivduals which are well-suited to an environment survive. Not hard to understand.
3. Descendants tend to inherit the features of their parent(s).
Verified by looking at parent and offspring. Like begets like.
Conclusion 1. Therefore, consequent generations are therefore more likely to exhibit a variation which was successful in leading to reproduction.

Conclusion 2. Therefore, with each generation, there will be a larger percentage of the population which have this successful feature than those which don't.

Definition. When the majority of the population exhibits this successful feature, the species is said to "evolve".
---------------------------------------------
But of course, most creationists don't seem to understand that this is what evolution is.
Or that macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution.
Or that stellar events/earthly processes/age of moon, etc. don't dispel every single evidence for the current scientific estimations of the Earth's age.
Seriously, a new theory has to explain old evidence just as well, if not better, in order to be accepted as valid.

Thanks, but I'm no fly. Yeah, you guessed it, I'm a fifty-foot robot with laser eyes. The avatar picture is a scaled-down diagram.

So, anybody have any thoughts about evolution?
...'cause I don't, at the moment.