Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:47 AM
451 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 447 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,961 Year: 6,567/21,208 Month: 2,328/2,634 Week: 516/572 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Direct and indirect evidence in science
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9321
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 41 (614421)
05-04-2011 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:44 AM


Even more inane than direct/circumstantial evidence?
Byers writes:

The fossil record is just casts of former life. iTs not living biology.
drawing conclusions from it can not be called biological research.
Biology is about test tubes and cutting up tissue not about pick axes and dynamite.

Nobody cares what you label you use, or what branch of science is used. Unless you can give some reason why a particular branch of science is invalid, and you never do, then evidence from that branch of science can be combined with evidence from any other branch of science. If you don't like the term biological research, then call it scientific research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:44 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 17 of 41 (614438)
05-04-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:44 AM


Robert Byers writes:

Your creationist debater made a good point.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:44 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 05-06-2011 3:59 AM ringo has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 18 of 41 (614690)
05-06-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ringo
05-04-2011 11:08 AM


ringo writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Your creationist debater made a good point.


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.

Not the same thing. Finger prints are from the tissue of skin. Nothing like a cast without tissue.
Fossils are just casts of pictures in a moment of time.
It merely shows the vague outline of a creature etc.
its not dealing with a biological system.
Fossils are not biological research. Theres no biology going on.
its only like a picture of a crime scene years before or after the crime happened.
Using fossils is using very minor data to draw great conclusions on processes and result from processes.
biology is complex in its nature.
Casts of former living biological things can only deal with already existing conclusions of unobserved processes.
At best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 05-04-2011 11:08 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 05-06-2011 6:17 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 05-06-2011 7:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 05-06-2011 10:41 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-06-2011 1:29 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 19 of 41 (614701)
05-06-2011 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Robert Byers
05-06-2011 3:59 AM


Astonishing Ignorance
Hi Robert,

Finger prints are from the tissue of skin. Nothing like a cast without tissue.
Fossils are just casts of pictures in a moment of time.

Gosh, what an amazingly ignorant statement. You clearly know as much about fossils as you do about evolution, i.e. nothing at all.

Many fossils retain the original tissues of the living organism that formed them. Ammonite shells preserved in clay commonly do for example, since their shells were already largely composed of minerals.

Compression fossils also tend to preserve the original material as well, albeit with some chemical changes (oh look! Geochemistry! It does exist!).

It merely shows the vague outline of a creature etc.

Another mind-blowing display of precision ignorance. Have you ever even seen a fossil? Ever been to a museum? No? You should try it Robert. It might help you avoid saying colossally stupid things. Does this look like a "vague outline" to you?

Or this?

How about this?

There's only one reason that anyone would claim that it is impossible to gain insight by studying fossils. You are a vandal. You are attempting to wreck legitimate scientific endeavour just so that you can feel nice in safe in your cosy religious fantasy world. How despicable.

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 18 by Robert Byers, posted 05-06-2011 3:59 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 12:58 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Medis
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 20 of 41 (614702)
05-06-2011 6:27 AM


Update
Just thought I'd update people on what happened. It has come to light that the creationist is in fact a flat Earth believer and also believes that human beings were at one point 90 ft tall.

I have thus concluded that it is impossible to reason with him and that he is quite possibly crazy.

If he won't accept that the Earth is round, no evidence of Evolution will ever be good enough for him.


Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2011 10:02 AM Medis has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 41 (614707)
05-06-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Robert Byers
05-06-2011 3:59 AM


Hi Robert,

In the The Flood = many coincidences thread you are basing your arguments upon your own personal definition of geology. In this thread you are basing your arguments upon your own personal definition of biology. Please stop basing your arguments upon your own personal definitions of fields of science. If you would like to debate the definition of any field of science then please propose threads for this purpose over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 05-06-2011 3:59 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9321
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 22 of 41 (614732)
05-06-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Medis
05-06-2011 6:27 AM


Re: Update
Malangyar writes:

Just thought I'd update people on what happened. It has come to light that the creationist is in fact a flat Earth believer and also believes that human beings were at one point 90 ft tall.

Got any evidence that Byers is a flat earth believer? I did a quick Internet search that turned up a bunch of goofy Robert Byers posts in the same vein as his stuff here, but no flat earth assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Medis, posted 05-06-2011 6:27 AM Medis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Medis, posted 05-06-2011 11:20 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 27 by Son, posted 05-06-2011 2:15 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 23 of 41 (614739)
05-06-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Robert Byers
05-06-2011 3:59 AM


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.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 05-06-2011 3:59 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 05-12-2011 1:01 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 24 of 41 (614746)
05-06-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-06-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Update
NoNukes writes:

Malangyar writes:

Just thought I'd update people on what happened. It has come to light that the creationist is in fact a flat Earth believer and also believes that human beings were at one point 90 ft tall.

Got any evidence that Byers is a flat earth believer? I did a quick Internet search that turned up a bunch of goofy Robert Byers posts in the same vein as his stuff here, but no flat earth assertions.

lol, sorry NN, I don't have any evidence linking Byers to FE.

Although I've noticed similarties between his responses and the creationist I was "debating".

They both respond selectively to posts and ignore uncomfortable points. They both make unsubstantiated claims of what is and isn't science and ignore calls for evidence and sources for their claims.

In addition, the guy I was debating jumped from subject to subject, often repeating the same objections to evolution I had just refuted a few pages back. In a sense he wasn't really reading my posts, rather he was fighting a monster he had himself set up.

The final straw came when it came to my attention that he was a FE believer. If people won't accept evidence that the Earth is round (e.g. The Blue Marble photo) then IMO they can't be reasoned with and will never accept any evidence you bring forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2011 10:02 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:19 PM Medis has not yet responded
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2011 2:18 AM Medis has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5700
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 25 of 41 (614789)
05-06-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Medis
05-06-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Update
In addition, the guy I was debating jumped from subject to subject,

Known as the Gish Gallop


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Medis, posted 05-06-2011 11:20 AM Medis has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1860 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 26 of 41 (614792)
05-06-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Robert Byers
05-06-2011 3:59 AM


By your logic, astronomers shouldn't use telescopes because light and lenses belong to the field of optics.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 05-06-2011 3:59 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2011 3:45 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 27 of 41 (614801)
05-06-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-06-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Update
He was actually talking about the guy he debated from the OP, not Robert.

OP writes:


Currently debating a creationist and he's been nagging me about evolution only being supported by indirect evidence while every other scientific theory is apparently supported by direct evidence...didn't want to state any falsehoods which is why I'm asking


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2011 10:02 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 28 of 41 (614820)
05-07-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Medis
05-06-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Update
If people won't accept evidence that the Earth is round (e.g. The Blue Marble photo) then IMO they can't be reasoned with and will never accept any evidence you bring forward.

I remember an article by the late Robert Schadewald, former president of the NCSE and tireless writer on the subject of pseudoscience, including creationism and flat-earthism. According to his Wikipedia article, he drew many parallels in the mental processes of creationists and flat-earthists. He also became friends with the leading flat-earthist and his wife.

In this article, he reported a conversation with his flat-earthist friend. At one point, he showed his friend a photo taken of the earth from space. His friend's expression hardened as he said to Schadewald (remembered from over a decade ago), "I see that you are part of the conspiracy."

That guy (now departed) truly believed in flat-earthism. His reason for that belief was the Bible. He believed that if the earth is actually not flat, then the Bible is not true. In order to defend the truth of the Bible, no evidence of a round earth could ever possibly be admitted to be true, or even credible. No doubt in the truth of the Bible can ever be allowed.

The vast majority of creationists believe that the truth of the Bible depends on creationism being true, or at the very least that evolution is false. In other words, if the evidence is true and the world really is as it is, then the Bible is false and everything they believe in is not true. So they must do absolutely everything they can to deny the evidence, to deny the truth. I do not envy them in the least; they have firmly committed themselves to a losing and indefensible position and they feel that they must hold it no matter what. So their standing operating procedure (SOP) regarding the evidence is that they must deny it. Or else watch their entire faith structure crumble away. I most definitely do not envy them in the least.

Reading the experiences of creationism opponents talking with their creationist opponents off the record, they are surprised to learn that these guys actually believe that stuff! We know that creationism is all lies and deception, but the creationists actually believe that stuff! When a creationist hits you with a flamingly blatant falsehood, you still have a hard time being able to say that that creationist had lied. Even their top-level liars you can't definitely say that they know that they are lying. I've spotted only a few definite cases of lying (eg, Walter Brown about his rattlesnake protein claim and a local pathological liar creationist about the ozone layer), but even then we don't know for sure that they haven't rationalized it completely away, regardless of how impossible that may seem to us.

Of course, in Robert Byers' case, he is so totally clueless about everything that I am truly surprised that he can achieve even minimal functionality on a daily basis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Medis, posted 05-06-2011 11:20 AM Medis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Medis, posted 05-07-2011 1:36 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 29 of 41 (614821)
05-07-2011 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ZenMonkey
05-06-2011 1:29 PM


By your logic, astronomers shouldn't use telescopes because light and lenses belong to the field of optics.

Since astronomy also proves facts that he finds unpalatable, he would presumably be happy to handicap them in this way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-06-2011 1:29 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 30 of 41 (614836)
05-07-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by dwise1
05-07-2011 2:18 AM


Re: Update
dwise1 writes:

I remember an article by the late Robert Schadewald, former president of the NCSE and tireless writer on the subject of pseudoscience, including creationism and flat-earthism. According to his Wikipedia article, he drew many parallels in the mental processes of creationists and flat-earthists. He also became friends with the leading flat-earthist and his wife.

In this article, he reported a conversation with his flat-earthist friend. At one point, he showed his friend a photo taken of the earth from space. His friend's expression hardened as he said to Schadewald (remembered from over a decade ago), "I see that you are part of the conspiracy."

That guy (now departed) truly believed in flat-earthism. His reason for that belief was the Bible. He believed that if the earth is actually not flat, then the Bible is not true. In order to defend the truth of the Bible, no evidence of a round earth could ever possibly be admitted to be true, or even credible. No doubt in the truth of the Bible can ever be allowed.

The vast majority of creationists believe that the truth of the Bible depends on creationism being true, or at the very least that evolution is false. In other words, if the evidence is true and the world really is as it is, then the Bible is false and everything they believe in is not true. So they must do absolutely everything they can to deny the evidence, to deny the truth. I do not envy them in the least; they have firmly committed themselves to a losing and indefensible position and they feel that they must hold it no matter what. So their standing operating procedure (SOP) regarding the evidence is that they must deny it. Or else watch their entire faith structure crumble away. I most definitely do not envy them in the least.

Reading the experiences of creationism opponents talking with their creationist opponents off the record, they are surprised to learn that these guys actually believe that stuff! We know that creationism is all lies and deception, but the creationists actually believe that stuff! When a creationist hits you with a flamingly blatant falsehood, you still have a hard time being able to say that that creationist had lied. Even their top-level liars you can't definitely say that they know that they are lying. I've spotted only a few definite cases of lying (eg, Walter Brown about his rattlesnake protein claim and a local pathological liar creationist about the ozone layer), but even then we don't know for sure that they haven't rationalized it completely away, regardless of how impossible that may seem to us.

Of course, in Robert Byers' case, he is so totally clueless about everything that I am truly surprised that he can achieve even minimal functionality on a daily basis.

Thanks for introducing me to Robert Schadewald, dwise1. I've been reading a few of his articles and they're actually very interesting in addition to being funny as hell.

I agree completely that the reason creationists deny any and all evidence is that if they accepted the evidence their whole world view would come crashing down. You are right, most of them probably aren't lying. They truly believe that evolution didn't happen.

But still, I'm amazed some of them don't cave in when faced with such overwhelming evidence of, say, the Earth being round. It's fascinating.

I will try and find more articles by Schadewald. According to Wikipedia a book has been released containing many of his writings, I might try and get hold of it...

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

Edited by Malangyar, : question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2011 2:18 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:36 PM Medis has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017