It is a ‘WAY out there’ concept, but alien seeding is still on the table as an idea,

This is more to do with abiogenesis than with evolution, ubnless you are implying that the aliens have visited us frequently in order to guide the course of life on Earth. It does not change that evolution has occurred on Earth, and if it shifts abiogenesis (i.e. life’s beginning) away from Earth to some distant planet, it simply means that we cannot investigate abiogenesis.

I do however see the evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is the most valid scientific theory regarding how life arose. Again .. I will still leave my mind open to other theories .. and philosophical arguments.

Bear in mind also that if any aspect of evolutionary theory were wrong in any major or significant way, we would already know about it. Modern evolutionary theory is the result of so much experimentation, observation and thought that we can be confident that even if it is wrong, it is still a very good approximation.

I do agree with what you say about science giving us the best description of how things work that we have knowledge of today. I see validity in evolutionary theory as a science and I see how it fits nicely with the given evidence. I am more-so indicating that there is still much more to be discovered regarding this issue and the results may differ from what we currently understand today. It is a ‘WAY out there’ concept, but alien seeding is still on the table as an idea, although a really far fetched one (one that I am not too convinced is a reality) and I still like to leave my mind open to other concepts. Science is a learning process, and one I respect highly. I do however see the evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is the most valid scientific theory regarding how life arose. Again .. I will still leave my mind open to other theories .. and philosophical arguments.

My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.

Had you left it at that, instead of all the ghostly silliness, I would have agreed you 80%.

The other 20% of the time, however – such as when large media companies pollute the public airwaves with junk passed off as science – is a perfect occasion for direct, open and unapologetic ridicule.

“See how this works?”

I appreciate you trying to teach me a lesson, but honestly, I know how this works. I’ve nowhere made a claim I didn’t back up – except the one we’re just talking about. But in this case the reason simply was that I thought it’d be redundant, and I didn’t wanna be too anal about it. See, I didn’t really expect anybody to ask for evidence for that kind of behaviour around here, it being as common as it is.

As you see, I choose to complain here, and I back up these complaints. It’s not that I’m so easily offended, or that I take issue with using words like that in general every once in a while – like I said, we’re all just human. My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.

Phil’s behaviour seemed a little strange to me, so I pointed it out.

Well, you are funny, I gotta give you that. I’m just not sure whether the things that make me laugh are the ones you intedend to do so.

Well, apologies then for assuming you like the things you do to make sense.

All I am really pointing out here is that science is limited in it’s understanding, due to the simple fact we haven’t discovered everything yet, and what we haven’t discovered yet, one could argue … doesn’t exist .. but just because science hasn’t discovered it yet .. doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Erm, yes, kinda.

Science has more to it than this, of course. There are some areas in which we have a very high level of confidence, and other areas where known uncertainty exists. It is possible to argue that even some of science’s best theories may be wrong in some fashion, but we also know enough to be able to state that certain theories, even if they are wrong, are at the very least a pretty good approximation of how the universe works.

Examples of such theories include quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, and, of course, evolution.