Evolution? How?

Hi Real Life,

How do you suppose evidence is obtained if not scientifically? By magic perhaps?

real life wrote:

It's very illogical for you to keep referring to evolution as if it were a branch of science.

Prove evolution is not science.

real life wrote:

Again, a branch of science is not the 'evidence'.

This makes no sense semantically, or logically.

real life wrote:

If you found a fossil, you would see evidence i.e. the condition the remains were in when found, the location, etc and you would use the principles of these various disciplines to draw conclusions as to what the critter ate, etc. The principles of these branches of science are the tools to help you understand the evidence. They are not the 'evidence' itself.

If what you say had a glimmer of logic, then DNA testing and forensic science would not be allowed as evidence in a court room.

Chumly, To people liike rl, science is only a theory equal to creationism and not observed. Why anybody bothers to explain anything to anybody with a calcified brain like rl is beyond my understanding too! A merry-go-round is more practical; it has a purpose.

Hi Real Life,

How do you suppose evidence is obtained if not scientifically? By magic perhaps?

It's all a matter of the mind.......I think? lol

My statement was that evolution is not a branch of science.

Since you seem to have quite a bit of trouble getting your terms straight, we'll leave your opinion on semantics aside.

DNA testing is not 'evidence'.

You will need to explain why an apple is not evidence of food.

Bartikus wrote:

It's all a matter of the mind.......I think? lol

I think you mean 'A waist is a terrible thing to mind'

real life wrote:

(Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

A half-truth at best: evolution is unambiguously observed through the fossil record

real life wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

It's all a matter of the mind.......I think? lol

I think you mean 'A waist is a terrible thing to mind'

not when it's a size 28.....but yes....mine is.

Bartikus, I know you're just teasing, but to answer your question, just go back and read all the responses by rl to answers provided by "everybody else" about evolution and science.

If that isn't "calcified," I don't know what other definition would fit.

Therefore neither one of us, nor anyone you can point out, has ever observed one critter, which is now fossilized, evolve into another.

Bartikus wrote:

real life wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

It's all a matter of the mind.......I think? lol

I think you mean 'A waist is a terrible thing to mind'

not when it's a size 28.....but yes....mine is.

I haven't seen 28 since 26, bro.

My statement was that evolution is not a branch of science.

Since you seem to have quite a bit of trouble getting your terms straight, we'll leave your opinion on semantics aside.

DNA testing is not 'evidence'.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus, I know you're just teasing, but to answer your question, just go back and read all the responses by rl to answers provided by "everybody else" about evolution and science.

If that isn't "calcified," I don't know what other definition would fit.

If I agreed it would only be my shared opinion at best.

I have learned that typing one's thoughts is not the best way of communicating. Too many possibilities of misunderstanding each other.

I once had a conversation with a good friend of mine over im and it erupted into a bitter dispute that lasted over a year.

It was nothing but a misunderstanding.

We are all limited somewhat by our written use of the english language....some more than others I admit.

There are times when my use of the english language is inadequate to relay my true thoughts. I suppose that would be true of almost anyone at times.