Is evolution based on empirical science?

[kaneada]

OoSnap said:

Absolutely not! Have we ever observed bacteria evolve into something else other than bacteria? Nope.

What about fruitflies? Nope. Still the same even after decades of fruitfly experiments. Sure the mutants have a different form and such (albeit more sickly and less fit) but they are still fruitflies.

Have we ever observed a reptile evolve into a bird? Have we ever observed molecules evolve into a life form? Nope and nope.

Evolution is not based on hard science but made up stories by people who spent thousands of dollars to get a title on their name. Don't be deceived. You are not the result of billions of years of evolution.

That said there are hardcore skeptics who say they only believe what they see but they have never seen evolution. A cat gives birth to a cat. A dog gives birth to a dog. People give birth to humans. Yet these same skeptics believe all life evolved from some primordial cell without ever observing it. Talk about being inconsistent and loopy [[confused]] ·It takes a lot of faith to believe the evolution story.

We have acutally...there are lizard types that are identical except for reproductive organs. The same lizard can be oberseved living in mountains and using internal carrying mechanisms for child rearing and lower on the same island they lay eggs...other than that identical species....demonstrates adaptability to ones envrionment which is a principle of evolution.

If you're implying there is any merit to creationism you're a kook or a really good comedian...