Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8779 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 4:06 PM
363 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,355 Year: 20,961/21,208 Month: 1,394/2,326 Week: 730/345 Day: 92/161 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Direct and indirect evidence in science
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 31 of 41 (614976)
05-09-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Medis
05-07-2011 1:36 PM


Re: Update
By the way, why did Schadewald pass away at such an early age?

Looks like cancer. This is all I could find.

quote:
I just learned of the death of a friend of mine (due to cancer) who was an
implacable enemy of young-earth creationism. Bob Schadewald was a writer,
the former president and editor of National Center for Science Education.

http://asa.chm.colostate.edu/archive/asa/200003/0202.html


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Medis, posted 05-07-2011 1:36 PM Medis has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1864 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 32 of 41 (615283)
05-12-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Granny Magda
05-06-2011 6:17 AM


Re: Astonishing Ignorance
I would repeat your pictures are vague outlines relative to biological tissue. In reality most fossils are casts of bones.
yes some have tissue evidence and creationists love this as it indicates a short burial and not a long one. they always talking about it.
Its not like fingerprints.
It is just casts from special processes that preserved them.
Decay is real and not biology is not preserved save here and there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-06-2011 6:17 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2011 6:27 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Admin, posted 05-12-2011 6:45 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1864 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 33 of 41 (615284)
05-12-2011 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
05-06-2011 10:41 AM


ringo writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Fossils are just casts of pictures in a moment of time.
It merely shows the vague outline of a creature etc.


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.

nope.
Fingerprints are fine.
Fossils are not like fingerprints.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 05-06-2011 10:41 AM ringo has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2302
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 34 of 41 (615295)
05-12-2011 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 12:58 AM


Re: Astonishing Ignorance
I would repeat your pictures are vague outlines relative to biological tissue.

Yes, repeating yourself is pretty much all you seem able to do.

If you were able to understand simple English, you would be aware that no-one has claimed that looking at a fossil is as useful as looking at a living organism in the flesh. However, since most of these creatures are extinct, fossils are what we have to work with. You seem to think that this means we should just give up and embrace ignorance. Well tough, because that's not going to happen. Biologists are not going to ignore the evidence of the fossil record just because you happen to find it inconvenient.

In reality most fossils are casts of bones.

Once again, you let your pathetic ignorance hang out. This is utter nonsense. Most large-sized fossils are mollusc remains, not bones. A child could tell you that. These would be enormously outnumbered though by microfossils. They're not bone either though. Apparently, making shit up as you go along isn't a very effective means of getting to the truth. Who would have thought.

yes some have tissue evidence and creationists love this as it indicates a short burial and not a long one.

In so far as this garbled rubbish resembles a sentence in the English language, it is wrong. The trilobite fossil above is permineralised, a process that takes a very long time indeed. Plus, you're cherry picking; you don't think that fossils provide valid evidence, except when they provide evidence that you think can be used to bolster your position. Then you're fine with fossil evidence. What a gigantic hypocrite you are.

Frankly, given that you have clearly demonstrated several times over that you don't know the first thing about this subject, I don't really see why anyone should be expected to take your drivelling seriously.

It is just casts from special processes that preserved them.

No it isn't. Did you not even read my last message? Did you understand what I said about ammonite shells and compression fossils? In some circumstances, the original material from the living organism is preserved. Does this look like a cast to you?

Truly, you are one of the worst proponents of creationism I have ever witnessed, quite an achievement in a very competitive field. Congratulations. My advice to you, if you want to make creationist theories look good, is to never publicly associate yourself with creationism ever again. You are not helping your cause. All you are doing is making creationists look like ignorant idiots.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 12:58 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 35 of 41 (615298)
05-12-2011 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Robert Byers
05-12-2011 12:58 AM


Re: Astonishing Ignorance
Robert Byers writes:

Decay is real and not biology...

In Message 21 I requested that you no longer use your own personal definitions of science as a basis for your arguments. The definition of biology is not the topic of discussion in this thread.

I'm removing your posting privileges in this forum. If you would like them restored then please send me a PM or an email indicating that you understand the request and will follow it in the future, and I will then restore your posting privileges.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 12:58 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Richard Aberdeen
Junior Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-06-2012


Message 36 of 41 (669942)
08-06-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
05-01-2011 1:01 AM


Wrongly Assumed
There is no evidence that human beings "evolved" from apes as this response very wrongly assumes. Most scientists believe that both apes and human beings share a common ancestor at least 7 million plus years ago, that was neither an ape or a human. It would be just as accurate to say that apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around, although neither statement is scientifically accurate. Even Richard Dawkins, who consistently lies about the known evidence and the well-established historical method of science in relation to evidence, agrees that it is scientifically absurd to say that humans evolved from apes. Such an assumption assumes a) That apes haven't themselves changed; b) That humans are more "advanced" than apes and c) That there is an over all advancement in species design and adaptation. There is no scientific evidence that any of these three are true and on the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that ALL forms of life are more or less equally well adapted for their own particular set of reproductive and other survival circumstances. What there is scientific evidence for is, that God creates life to adapt and change, so that life itself can survive, which life has managed to do quite well on earth in spite of many major cataclismic events. The concept of "species" is an artifical invention of science, which has no relationship to the actual reality of either life or how life functions. Life marches on just fine, regardless of whether we call all snakes a "snake" or, we divide snakes up into various "species". Artificial divisions invented by human beings have no relationship whatsoever to how life either came to be or functions in true reality. Any first-year philosophy student knows better than that.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2011 1:01 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-06-2012 6:04 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Panda, posted 08-06-2012 6:09 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2012 6:16 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2012 6:30 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-06-2012 7:01 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 37 of 41 (669943)
08-06-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen
08-06-2012 5:55 PM


Re: Wrongly Assumed
Humans are apes.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen, posted 08-06-2012 5:55 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 38 of 41 (669944)
08-06-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen
08-06-2012 5:55 PM


Re: Wrongly Assumed
Hi Richard,

None of your post seems to be on-topic.
The thread topic is possibly best summarised from the OP:
"What is the definition of direct evidence and indirect evidence and could you please provide examples of each?"

If you wish to talk about human evolution then I suggest that you either find an existing thread that is discussing human evolution or request a new thread in http://www.evcforum.net/Threads.php?control=tf&f=25.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen, posted 08-06-2012 5:55 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12968
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 39 of 41 (669945)
08-06-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen
08-06-2012 5:55 PM


Re: Wrongly Assumed
quote:

There is no evidence that human beings "evolved" from apes as this response very wrongly assumes. Most scientists believe that both apes and human beings share a common ancestor at least 7 million plus years ago, that was neither an ape or a human. It would be just as accurate to say that apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around, although neither statement is scientifically accurate

You have your taxonomy confused. It would be a mistake to say that humans are descended from modern ape species. It is not a mistake to say that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was an ape.

This accepts that modern apes are distinct from ancient species and makes no assumptions about any species being "more advanced" than any other (although the foolish idea that humans are descended from modern ape species doesn't make the latter assumption either).

And of course there is no scientific evidence that God has created any life whatsoever.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen, posted 08-06-2012 5:55 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 40 of 41 (669946)
08-06-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen
08-06-2012 5:55 PM


Re: Wrongly Assumed
Welcome to the fray!

There is no evidence that human beings "evolved" from apes as this response very wrongly assumes. Most scientists believe that both apes and human beings share a common ancestor at least 7 million plus years ago, that was neither an ape or a human.

When I was studying evolution and fossil man in graduate school my professor used to refer to the some of the early primates as "ape-toothed monkeys" as they had characteristics of both groups. Monkeys and apes diverged about 25 million years ago, and from that point on it is fair to refer to all critters on one side of the divide as monkeys and the other side as apes--right up to the present.

It would be just as accurate to say that apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around, although neither statement is scientifically accurate.

There is no evidence at all that apes evolved from humans, so your simile doesn't work.

Even Richard Dawkins, who consistently lies about the known evidence and the well-established historical method of science in relation to evidence, agrees that it is scientifically absurd to say that humans evolved from apes.

Humans did not descend from modern-day apes. They evolved from a common ancestor.

Such an assumption assumes a) That apes haven't themselves changed;

Apes have changed over time.

b) That humans are more "advanced" than apes

Humans are more advanced than apes.

and c) That there is an over all advancement in species design and adaptation.

Both species have "advanced," if by that you mean adapted to changing conditions.

There is no scientific evidence that any of these three are true

Sorry, all three of those statements appear to be accurate.

and on the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that ALL forms of life are more or less equally well adapted for their own particular set of reproductive and other survival circumstances.

Your statement is not accurate. While all surviving species are somewhat adapted to their surroundings, some are failing and in danger of becoming extinct. Look at the California Condor. That species is only hanging on because of tremendous efforts by wildlife biologists.

And probably millions of species have already failed and become extinct; I've seen an estimate, if I remember correctly, that some 98% of all species that ever lived are already extinct.

Various species will span the full range from well-adapted to poorly-adapted, and this may change as conditions change and the different species try to adapt. Some will succeed and some will fail. So again, your statement is inaccurate.

What there is scientific evidence for is, that God creates life to adapt and change, so that life itself can survive, which life has managed to do quite well on earth in spite of many major cataclismic events.

That is a religious belief, not something for which there is scientific evidence.

The concept of "species" is an artifical invention of science, which has no relationship to the actual reality of either life or how life functions. Life marches on just fine, regardless of whether we call all snakes a "snake" or, we divide snakes up into various "species". Artificial divisions invented by human beings have no relationship whatsoever to how life either came to be or functions in true reality. Any first-year philosophy student knows better than that.

And any first-year biology student knows that while the classifications we make are arbitrary, that they are based on the best available data at the time--and that data is based on reality. By including the fossil and DNA records we can extend that data back through time, and discover the ancestry of the various species.

Recently DNA studies have changed the lineages of a number of species--scientists routinely correct their mistakes to make their descriptions and analyses as accurate as possible as nobody wants to rely on false data!

I look forward to your response, and again, welcome to the fray!

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen, posted 08-06-2012 5:55 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3818
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 41 of 41 (669951)
08-06-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen
08-06-2012 5:55 PM


Please see message 38
Message 38

Please propose a new topic, or maybe you can find an existing relevant topic.

The brand new Ancestral and daughter species existing simultaneously? topic may also be of interest to you.

Please, no replies to this message in this topic. You may, however, Personal Message me or any other admin if you have questions.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Richard Aberdeen, posted 08-06-2012 5:55 PM Richard Aberdeen has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017