No that's not what I'm saying at all Rjh4.
I am speaking of evidence not proof, as the subject of the thread (and my name) is Evidence Vs Faith, not proof Vs Faith.
I am saying that on the whole when given directions it should be considered evidence I guess, because people usually tell the truth. The reason why it shouldn't be considered proof is because of course it's not always the case! And it is in no way proven to be. People can easily give the wrong directions either deliberately or accidentally.
My other point was simply that what one believes to be evidence and what is evidence are two different things. If I believe that the existence of the fruit oranges is evidence for the existence of a pixie that I claim lives in my back garden, the fact I believe that to be evidence does not make it so. It does not actually evidence it because it's a complete non-sequitur and doesn't even make any sense.
Just as the fact that creationists may believe they have evidence for creationism, does not mean that they actually have evidence for creationism. Evolution on the other hand, actually has supporting evidence that is verifiable. This is not absolutely proven to be evidence for if it was it would be proof and not evidence. However, it is a matter of fact of whether evolution actually has supporting verifiable evidence or not. The supporting evidence, the fossils, the DNA, either does or does not exist. Whether this is believed to be evidence is another matter to whether it actually exists.
Anyone could simply say that fossils and Dna, etc., is "Not evidence", but that doesn't change the fact that those pieces of evidence do physically exist and can be seen for what they really are by rational minds. Not everyone has to accept evidence for it to be evidence, and not everyone has to reject something as baseless and lacking in evidence, for it to indeed, be completely lacking in evidence and require utmost faith to believe in.
EvF
I am speaking of evidence not proof, as the subject of the thread (and my name) is Evidence Vs Faith, not proof Vs Faith.
I am saying that on the whole when given directions it should be considered evidence I guess, because people usually tell the truth. The reason why it shouldn't be considered proof is because of course it's not always the case! And it is in no way proven to be. People can easily give the wrong directions either deliberately or accidentally.
My other point was simply that what one believes to be evidence and what is evidence are two different things. If I believe that the existence of the fruit oranges is evidence for the existence of a pixie that I claim lives in my back garden, the fact I believe that to be evidence does not make it so. It does not actually evidence it because it's a complete non-sequitur and doesn't even make any sense.
Just as the fact that creationists may believe they have evidence for creationism, does not mean that they actually have evidence for creationism. Evolution on the other hand, actually has supporting evidence that is verifiable. This is not absolutely proven to be evidence for if it was it would be proof and not evidence. However, it is a matter of fact of whether evolution actually has supporting verifiable evidence or not. The supporting evidence, the fossils, the DNA, either does or does not exist. Whether this is believed to be evidence is another matter to whether it actually exists.
Anyone could simply say that fossils and Dna, etc., is "Not evidence", but that doesn't change the fact that those pieces of evidence do physically exist and can be seen for what they really are by rational minds. Not everyone has to accept evidence for it to be evidence, and not everyone has to reject something as baseless and lacking in evidence, for it to indeed, be completely lacking in evidence and require utmost faith to believe in.
EvF
