On 5/12/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll try again: "Direct evidence" and "observation" are not always the same. You seem to be saying that the only direct evidence is actually observing an event. You seem very hung up on this word "direct". Is a film of evolution happening, rather than a collection of bodies with time stamps, all you'd accept as "direct evidence" for the evolution of life on earth?
Direct evidence, to me, means directly observing, measuring, etc. It does not mean directly observing the results or aftermath of something. A mechanism other than evolution as we presently understand it could be responsible for the historical evidence that we find in the fossil record. Nanomachines devised by evil overlords, whose purpose is to confuse us, may have assembled the whole thing, to give a silly example. This is like the difference between watching a building burn and looking at a burnt building. The former is direct evidence of a fire, the latter is indirect. I'm not hung up on the word. It is the word I meant, but you don't seem to agree on what it means, which is your privilege, but I'm done explaining what I mean by it. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
