If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[BVZ]

A lot of arguments used against the theory of evolution boils down to this: You cannot observe it directly, so you can't use it as evidence.

In another thread, it was argued that mutations do not exist, since they have not been observed directly.

So, heres the point of the OP:

How valid is the following claim:
"Since mutations cannot be observed directly, they do not exist."

 

[Grengor]

One point I bring up is that since murders aren't often directly observed, Creationists should be protesting sentencing people to jail, often on their approved capitol punishment. Since forensic scientists "weren't there".

 

[Dannager]

From TalkOrigins.org:

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method.

Creationists are only hurting their position when they bring this up. I think what a lot of them mean when they talk about indirect observation is things that have occured in the past. However, as Grengor mentioned, forensic science deals entirely with indirect observation of the past. Science does not require direct observation so I don't know why creationists keep claiming that it does. Where are they getting this nonsense from?

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

A lot of arguments used against the theory of evolution boils down to this: You cannot observe it directly, so you can't use it as evidence.

Funny that Creationists use that because the argument completely obliterates the existence of God.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

How valid is the following claim: "Since mutations cannot be observed directly, they do not exist."

First of all, this is completely wrong.

Second, even assuming this would be the case, it would be no more and no less valid than "Since God cannot be observed directly, he does not exist."

 

[Edx]

Sams point was for a while, until I showed his dishonest he was, was that you had to see the mutation directly observed "frame for frame" just so you could see that no ID was responsible for the change. But he also knows that it wouldnt make a difference even if you could witness this, as it woulndt prove ID wasnt responsible anyway.

Ed

 

[DevotiontoBible]

One point I bring up is that since murders aren't often directly observed, Creationists should be protesting sentencing people to jail, often on their approved capitol punishment. Since forensic scientists "weren't there".

Your comparing Apples to Oranges.
A crime is an act committed, an action that occurred it is not a person that existed. Evolution claims that trans-species mutations existed. You can't observe an action that occurred in the past (such as a crime) but you should be able to observe a person, place or thing that mutated in the fossil record remains. THere are supposed to be millions of these mutated beasts over 35 million years and yet not a single remain found. Also, evolutionists claim trans species evolution is on-going...so show us! BTW speciation is not trans-speciation. Speciation is not mutating a reptile into a bird or an ape into a human. Speciations remain a plant, a dog etc.

 

[Edx]

an ape into a human.

A human is an ape.

Speciations remain a plant, a dog etc.

And evolution doesnt say it wont, devotiontostrawmen

 

[DevotiontoBible]

A human is an ape.



And evolution doesnt say it wont, devotiontostrawmen

As your reply shows. Evolution has nothing to observe and is therefore not scientific and does not exist.

 

[Edx]

As your reply shows. Evolution has nothing to observe and is therefore not scientific.

As your reply shows, you dont care that you are attacking a strawman. Do you even know what that means?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

As your reply shows, you dont care that you are attacking a strawman. Do you even know what that means?

Prove I have given a strawman ...produce a trans-species beast.

 

[Baggins]

a lurker writes;

platypus

 

[Edx]

Prove I have given a strawman ...produce a trans-species beast.

Eh?!

You have no idea what a strawman is, I will explain. Now please listen and understand.

A strawman is when you describe someone elses position incorrectly, argue against it and proclaim victory.

So its easy to prove you are arguing with strawmen because you keep talking about plants changing into non-plants, saying that that is what Evolution says will happen. Except if that were to happen Evolution would be WRONG. Plants will always be plants.

So you clearly dont undertsand speciation, nor evolution.

So why dont you try learning what Evolution is, and stop making an ass out of yourself?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Evolution claims that trans-species mutations existed.

Would you be so kind and tell us what "trans-species mutations" are.

THere are supposed to be millions of these mutated beasts over 35 million years and yet not a single remain found.

Try the talkorigins Transitional Fossil FAQ. I'd give you the link, but I'll have to have 15 posts before linking.
​

 

[D McCloud]

Evolution claims that trans-species mutations existed. You can't observe an action that occurred in the past (such as a crime) but you should be able to observe a person, place or thing that mutated in the fossil record remains.

How are you understanding trans-species mutations, and what exactly do you think we should have evidence of for this to take place?

 

[z3ro]

Prove I have given a strawman ...produce a trans-species beast.

Um, you've actually proven your own strawman quite well. Bravo!

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

saying the God doesnt exist, because there is no direct knowledge of it makes you an anti-foundationalist, which ultimately makes you a subjectivist, which means that truth can be perceived different from person to person.

if you have a headache and you go tot the doctor and he says there's nothing wrong. your just a hypochondriac, ar eyou going to believe him/ or follow the direct knowledge that your head hurts so somehting is wrong.

your getting 2 different "truths" now. to you, yoour head hurts something is wrong...and the doctor your a hypochondriac, nothing is wrong...who do you believe? both cant be right.

 

[Edx]

if you have a headache and you go tot the doctor and he says there's nothing wrong. your just a hypochondriac, ar eyou going to believe him/ or follow the direct knowledge that your head hurts so somehting is wrong.

A doctor cant tell you something doesnt hurt. Having a headache can mean many things, a tumour or just stress and lack of sleep.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

A doctor cant tell you something doesnt hurt. Having a headache can mean many things, a tumour or just stress and lack of sleep.

nevertheless soemthing is still, wrong, i should have picked soemthign that dealt with less side factors, but you have the idea of what i mean

 

[Edx]

nevertheless soemthing is still, wrong,

So?

i should have picked soemthign that dealt with less side factors, but you have the idea of what i mean

And you're still wrong. The point is we trust doctors but we dont have "absolute faith" in them. Thats what you dont understand. Not everyone has "absolute faith" in things they believe.