Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Direct and indirect evidence in science
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 14 of 41 (614389)
05-04-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Medis
04-30-2011 10:58 AM


Malangyar writes:
Hi, couldn't find a place to post these questions so decided to try and start a new topic:
What is the definition of direct evidence and indirect evidence and could you please provide examples of each? In relation to evolution, would the fossil record be an example of direct or indirect evidence of evolution?
Also, could you explain why indirect evidence is "good enough" evidence to support scientific theories, or provide examples of commonly accepted scientific theories, where supporting evidence is wholely, or mostly indirect? I know atoms are at least one such theory (source: Questions and Answers - What is one example of indirect evidence that scientists use to study an atom?)
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
Evidence quality and quantity is a problem for ideas that are wrong. Like evolution and company.
The fossil record is a good point for creationists of what is not biological evidence for a conclusion.
Always i see evolutionists try to say the fossil record is a top ten piece of evidence for the reality of evolutionary change.
yet a creationist will reply its not biological evidence for a biological claim but in fact its geological evidence from whence a biological claim is made.
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.
In this way a important flaw is shown in what evidence is for a conclusion.
Evolution can not claim data from geological presumptions and results as biological evidence for a biological theory.
The fossil record is not indirect evidence for evolutionary processes but is not evidence at all.
Its just data interpretated from geological presumptions from whence they speculate about biological process.
Your creationist debater made a good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Medis, posted 04-30-2011 10:58 AM Medis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by fearandloathing, posted 05-04-2011 3:30 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2011 8:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 05-04-2011 11:08 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 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 replied

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

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 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 replied

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

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024