Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?

On Feb 6, 12:22 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On 5 Feb, 21:05, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:43 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:02 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snip

Macroevolution has been directly observed, the way anything in
science is observed, by inferring it from the evidence.

DJT

I have never read so much /bullshit/ in one post in my life.

I know, but Ray will go on......

_Every bit of it is a rationalization_

Yep, Ray is pretty good at rationalizing his beliefs......

Starting with:

"If you are going to be technical, nothing can be "observed"

and ending with:

"Macroevolution has been directly observed"

By your own words, Macroevolution cannot be observed because
nothing can be "observed"

You seem to have missed the point I was making that by *Ray's*
standards, nothing can be observed. By normal human standards,
observation is made by inference. Any set of observations
requires inference from the evidence. Ray is trying to claim that
if it's "inferred" it can't be observed.

And that is what I am saying as well.

Adman: you need to understand that Dana Tweedy is the most angry
evolutionist here at Talk Origins. His entire reason-for-being is
to misrepresent his enemies (because he cannot refute anything
that they actually say).

When Dana said (above) "Ray is trying to claim that if it's
inferred' it can't be observed" he is deliberately misrepresenting.

I do not say, imply or believe that.

Here is what I do say, imply and believe (because it is a fact):

If it is *inferred* the same is an **interpretation** of evidence.

Evolution is not observed. Darwinists call it observed because they
seek to make people think that they actually see evolution
happening in real time as they are watching. They want this false
representation propagated because they have no answer for
accepting, as fact, something they cannot see in real time as they
watch.

The importance of interpretation is that the same can be given a
*different* interpretation----do you understand?

And Dana's correct point was that your distinction between
"inference" and "observation" is that ALL observation requires
interpretation, and that if you require interpretation free
observation, nothing is ever observed. If you try for instance to
catch a fish in water, you are likely to miss it because your brain
interprets the optical information badly.
And while all observation requires interpretation, that does not
mean that every interpretation is equally valid, or that we can;t
say that of two interpretations of the available
evidence/observation, one is obviously sound, the other obviously
bogus. Only really weird French postmodern philosophers disagree
-and they tend to be rather against religion, so don't expect help
from there

Look. Either you observe something, or you don't.

There is no in-between.

Depends. If you mean "immediate observation with out inference/
interpretation", then we NEVER observe. If you mean "inference based
on observation", then we ALWAYS observe. If you mean the everyday
notion of "observe" (say: I just saw the bus on the street" as opposed
to an everyday notion of "inferred" (from the tracks on the road, I
inferred that a bus was driving here sometime" then you have LOTS of
in-betweens, as even the simplest observation requires quite a lot of
interpretation - that is hwy optical illusions work

Perhaps science redefines words. To me, an observation is something that you
see taking place first hand and in real time.

You cannot infer anything unless you have observed something about it first.

A real observation should need no inference.

i see salt from the sea. i know chemistry. i infer that, at some point
in the past an acid and a base mixed to form a salt.

how do i INFER this about the sea? because, as a chemist, i can go
into a lab, mix an acid and base and get salt.

that's how science works.


An inference based on intermittent observations is just that. An inference
alone based on incomplete data without an actual first hand observation to
the entire event.-

not a scientist in the world would agree with your assessment of
scientific methodology since it would render science useless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?
    ... by inferring it from the evidence. ... requires inference from the evidence. ... interpretation, and that if you require interpretation free ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?
    ... by inferring it from the evidence. ... requires inference from the evidence. ... interpretation, and that if you require interpretation free ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you actually BELIEVE THAT?
    ... by inferring it from the evidence. ... observation is made by inference. ... The importance of interpretation is that the same can be given a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: amazing
    ... All anyone has is an interpretation of evidence. ... That's why science is ... inferring is quite different from assuming. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
    ... I'm in agreement that some religious folks are ignorant of science. ... interpretation) - it seems to me that I've been ignoring what seems to ... old universe) solely because there is scientific data that suggests a ... evidence that God had anything at all to do with the Bible. ...
    (talk.origins)