Standards of Evidence

Sorry, IceAge, but the specific issues you are replying too are NOT on topic here. If we get into specifics this thread will be cluttered with every issue that the site is about.Do NOT continue down this path.

I'm not sure if "innocent" is quite he right word. Some of them can turn quite nasty.But yes, they do accept anything they happen to like on the basis of only a superficial examination. And some of them know it. One creationist here got very upset when it was suggested that he should take more care in the choice of websites he chooses to cite. His way of dealing with the problem of using unreliable evidence is to wish it away and insist that nobody should mention the fact.And they can say things that are obviously false and cling to the bitter death rather than admit error. Randman is something of a prime example here, but Rob's nutty linking of "theology" and "theory" is beginning to get close. Since etymology disproves his idea the thing to do is to ignore etymology.So far as I can see the fact that they believe something (usually because they like it) far outweighs any consideration of evidence. Or sometimes even the facts.

Indeed they do.But the point of this thread is to find out what methods of evaluating evidence are the most and least reliable in objective terms.Simply disagreeing with interpretations, explanations and conclusions is all very well but what is the basis for this agreement if it is not dogma alone?Is a written text inferior, superior or equal as evidence to a measurable verified observed prediction of the sort that all but eliminates any interpretation of the evidence? What is the reasoning behind your answer??

Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation.Objectivity is the ability to interpret evidence contrary to presuppositions and personal bias.For example: what is the best interpretation of the appearance of design seen in biological reality? Logically, it corresponds to the work of a Designer. How about parahomologous structures and anatomy? Logically, they correspond to the inference that evolution has occurred. I am trying to be objective even though I disagree with the latter. I happen to know that the latter inference, despite being, at face value, an objective interpretation, is actually made under the presupposition that God is not seen in reality. The former (objective interpretation of design corresponding to [invisible] Designer) falsifies the presupposition of the latter. BUT the latter presupposition claims to be a justified supposition based on other evidence. But the justification is nonetheless based on the non-objective presupposition that design does not correspond to Designer.The point is that presuppositions and worldviews supplant the ideal of what is objective.Does objectivity objectively exist?Yes, IF God exists then whatever He says is the only objective truth.Why?Answer: Because He is omnipotent and omniscient God. The same can only be objective because of who He is.The point is that only God's subjective views are objective truth. The Bible claims to contain God's subjective views and those views, if the claim is true, should correspond to reality.Genesis CLAIMS that God created the world and its contents on purpose. Since the world contains the overwhelming appearance of design the same corroborates and corresponds to the work of the Genesis Creator. Therefore the logical meaning of design corresponding to Designer is confirmed objective truth and the evolutionary interpretation (including the logical inference of homology), made under the supposition that design does not correspond to Designer, is subjective and false.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

In summary you are saying that evidence is evaluated and interpreted either with the assumption that God definitely does exist, or with the assumption that he definitely does not exist.Is that correct? Therefore the aim of science should be to limit interpretation to increase objectivity. Right?I put to you, once again, the case of specific measurable predicted results (which you have thus far evaded)Here no interpretation of the evidence is required as any interpretation has been inherent in the theory itself.
If the predictions are verified then they verify the interpretation within the theory.
The evidence itself requires no interpretation whatsoever.
Only accurate measurement.
BB theory is a fine example of this in action.Do you agree that specific measurable predictions are the best means of evaluating any scientific theory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Double post.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... is not a magic word that magically makes whatever you're saying true.It has a meaning.In particular, preceding a gross logical fallacy with the word "logically" will never make it logical.

Yes.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Idealistically, objectivity is always the goal, and science is always subjectively defined depending on one's worldview. Objectively defined, as my initial post did in this exchange, science presupposes the existence of God and interprets all evidence under said paradigm. "Here" means what?Your comment makes no sense. In your subjective viewpoint. Objectively, evidence always requires interpretation.Ray

Then how is it that scientists of all faiths and none agree on the facts?If one's religious outlook made a difference, you'd expect it to, y'know, make a difference.

... is also not a magic word.

You really are evading actually answering the question...... Here = The case of specific measurable predicted resultsLets take a non-controversial general example of principle.E.g Theory X predicts the existence of a new and extremely difficult to detect particle with specific mass A and specific charge B.This particle has never before been detected.
This particle has never before been suspected to exist.
The sole reason for thinking that this particle may exist is theory X.Detection methods improve with new technology.
A particle with mass A and charge B is sought and indeed detected.In YOUR eyes has this theory be vindicated?
What BETTER evidence could there be for the veracity of theory X? In this example what interpretation is required of the EVIDENCE?All that is required is accuracy of measurement. No? Thus specific measurable predicted results are the BEST form of evidence for a theory as they require no post result interpretation whatsoever.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Surely in the name of objectivity God should neither be assumed to exist or not to exist?That is how science actually works. Whether you believe it or not.

As to what the fact or evidence means. I assume your assertion true, the issue is, what does the fact or data mean?RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Impossible ideal. "Everyone has opinions about the existence of God. Honest and objective persons state them up front so when they creep into conclusions the public will know it." Darwinism says God is not involved in reality; you have misunderstood the "neutral" claim, which only seeks to conceal the Atheist agenda (presupposition that God is not involved in reality).Ray