Direct and indirect evidence in science

The whole direct/indirect thing is of no use to the creationist anyway, since nobody was there to see his prefered scenario either. The trouble with creationism is that it lacks both direct and indirect evidence and relies on misinterpreting indirect evidence.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Do you accept fingerprints as evidence of a crime? If fossils aren't biological, then fingerprints aren't criminal either. By your reasoning, criminalists have no business looking at them and by the creationist debator's reasoning, they aren't direct evidence of a crime so they don't count.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Fingerprints are much more fleeting moments of time than fossils. They're much more vaque than many fossils.By your reasoning, fingerprints are not direct enough evidence to use in criminal investigations. By your reasoning, we should open the prison doors and turn loose everybody who was convicted on fingerprint evidence.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate