Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Standards of Evidence
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 77 (415124)
08-08-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:14 AM


More Details
However the trouble with this sweeping brush approach is that it does leave the door open for other broad "interpretations" in a way that a specific measurable predicted quantity (for example) does not.
- I keep waiting for someone to deliver on of these other interpretations.
I think there is room to keep drilling down into more detail in the same manner. The bird reptile prediction, whale transitionals, fish-amphibian etc. are examples.
ABE
I agree that in an uncontrolled non-lab environment each individual piece of data is less compelling (generally anyway - just to wish wash)
Edited by NosyNed, : added a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 11:59 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 77 of 77 (415132)
08-08-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
08-08-2007 11:30 AM


Re: More Details
- I keep waiting for someone to deliver on of these other interpretations.
Me too!! Without the creationist element taking part I find myself splitting hairs with people I essentially agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 08-08-2007 11:30 AM NosyNed 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