Direct and indirect evidence in science

Hi Robert, 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!). 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

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. 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. 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. 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