subjective science

Originally posted by @apathist
You stated that scientists try to prove evolution, and that specific point is incorrect. Since you aren't arguing about it, according to you that means you don't disagree.

If you are writing to prove a point your no different than anyone attempting to prove creationism.

Originally posted by @apathist
You stated that scientists try to prove evolution, and that specific point is incorrect. Since you aren't arguing about it, according to you that means you don't disagree.

I don't disagree with evolution being a real process, I already said that.

Originally posted by @apathist
Evolution is a fact. Do you mean the theory of evolution? Scientists are interested in testing the theory; they try to prove it wrong!

If evolution was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory. How do you prove something wrong that you have never directly observed and supposedly needs millions of years to happen?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If evolution was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory. How do you prove something wrong that you have never directly observed and supposedly needs millions of years to happen?

You don't need millions of years to observe it, that is only brought into play when people want to promote all life comes from a single life form at abiogenesis.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell that to the architects and landscape designers they might not be impressed with you.

No architect or landscape gardener designed London!

Originally posted by @sonship
London is like any other old large metropolitan area.

The city evolved

yep

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
No architect or landscape gardener designed London!

Ah yes the buildings magically arranged themselves from raw materials without intelligent intervention. Who doesn't know that? 🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ah yes the buildings magically arranged themselves from raw materials without intelligent intervention. Who doesn't know that? 🙄

We know you believe in magic.
Don't flaunt your stupidity.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
If they are not attempting to prove a I am not talking about them.

Who are you talking about?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If evolution was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory. How do you prove something wrong that you have never directly observed and supposedly needs millions of years to happen?

Fortunately evolution has been directly observed and doesn't need millions of years.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
We know you believe in magic.
Don't flaunt your stupidity.

At least my 'magic' involves a 'magician'. Your magic is on another level: magic without a magician by random chance.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
At least my 'magic' involves a 'magician'. Your magic is on another level: magic without a magician by random chance.

Where in the theory of evolution do you think "random chance" comes into play?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Fortunately evolution has been directly observed and doesn't need millions of years.

Yes the actual 'evolution' where species adapt to their environment. No one denies that.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Where in the theory of evolution do you think "random chance" comes into play?

Where doesn't it?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Who are you talking about?

Sorry, was using phone while standing in line at Trader Joe's.
I'm quite sure some are not writing to prove a point, and if that is the case they are not who
I was talking about.