Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

The bible makes claims, it does not provide evidence. If you truly feel that the claims of any given religion constitute evidence then I'll see you at the next blot, yes?

[FallentoReason]

Can we please hear what you have to say Drich? I'm really REALLY curious. Or even PM me. You're a smart person and I'm willing to keep an open mind. I consider myself a free thinker... Open to ANY idea.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The bible makes claims, it does not provide evidence.

Here we go yet again; evidence is NOT a synonym for proof,merely ANYTHING provided in support of a claim.

Citing the bible IS evidence. What it is not is CREDIBLE evidence or proof.

Drip the the apologist insists on citing the bible because that is safe and comforting. To face the inherent problems in his personal superstitions is far too threatening.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

[popeyespappy]

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, and even empirical evidence is subject to theory dependence. We all have bias that must be overcome.

[Drich]

Can we please hear what you have to say Drich? I'm really REALLY curious. Or even PM me. You're a smart person and I'm willing to keep an open mind. I consider myself a free thinker... Open to ANY idea.

Hear what I have to say about what?

---

I have proven my point. All any of you can do is scoff at what evidence is not, none of you even know what you are looking for, so how can you even hope to identify, what you will not even be able to recognize?

So we are back to square one. If a foolish man wants help finding his dog, you must first get the fool to tell you what the dog looks like otherwise you will just be chasing after random dogs... Then who is the fool?

This is how the real world works out side of web boards and chat rooms philosophers minds. If you need my help looking for something you must tell me what you are looking for. Otherwise know you will be looking for your "dog" all by yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

And the bible determines or demonstrates the truth of it's claims (or Drich's claims) exactly how? No dice. If the assertion was merely "the bible says", then sure. "The bible says and so it is thus", no. A verse is wonderful evidence -for what is in the bible-, and it pays to be specific when speaking about evidence. Calling the bible evidence for anything outside it's pages (specifically with regards to it's origins narrative)is akin to calling Star Wars evidence for the existence of the force. I can't remember who said this "everything is evidence of something" (perhaps someone else has heard this and remembers), which is true, but that doesn't mean that everything is evidence of any given specific. There's nothing wrong with considering evidence from what you feel to be a less than credible source (we're often wrong), but in the end, a determination is made as to whether or not what has been presented is evidence -of the claim made-, if it is not, it is not evidence. It's not that it's "bad evidence", it's not evidence at all. If a different claim were made, perhaps it would be, but as it stands, it is not.

To put it simply, the bibles claims (lets say with regards to our origins) are evidence of what a group of people believed about our origins, but in a discussion about origins, and not beliefs regarding origins, it is not evidence at all. It is not evidence in the same way that the color of my morning bowel movement is not evidence of rain. It's not less than credible evidence, it's not bad evidence, again, it's not evidence at all. There has to be a connection between the claim and the "evidence", in both cases (the bible and my bowel movement) there is none.


@Drich, you just keep repeating that line like a mantra, are you placing a hex on us? You've been told (repeatedly) that people would like to hear whatever it is you have to present, you've been given general license, you've been given specific suggestions. There are no avenues left to make excuses. You have something or you don't. If you don't that's okay, no one expects you to, and it isn't like you'll be carried off the forums on a pole for it. However, you may never hear the end of all the bitching and whining about evidence you've managed to force yourself into.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If the assertion was merely "the bible says ----

If I assert "because Fred told me ", that is called "hearsay evidence", but not proof.


Testimonials are often used in advertising ."I used X and Y happened" THAT is called ''anecdotal evidence". It is neither credible nor proof,but it IS evidence.

I call myself an agnostic atheist,asserting only: "I do not believe in god(s) due to the lack of CREDIBLE evidence. I make the distinction because there IS evidence for the existence of gods,shiploads. Eg oral tradition,personal testimony,ancient and modern writings concerning hundreds of religions..BUT None of it holds up to scrutiny;the evidence is not credible and does constitute proof.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN PROOF. At best,it implies (suggests) proof. Evidence must be examined to see if it supports the claims made. Religious evidence does not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Eg oral tradition,personal testimony,ancient and modern writings concerning hundreds of religions.

All evidence of human beings and the human experience, but none of it evidence of any god. Again, everything is evidence of something. I'm not sure about the laws where you are btw, but here, "hearsay" is actually classified as hearsay, and makes for an easy objection and dismissal (hearsay does not constitute evidence in our system, else whispers become convictions). This is the language of law we're talking about here though, not existence. "Anecdotal evidence" is the language of advertising (and often, fuzzy thinking), again, not existence.

They get nothing. In the end, you and I seem to have different definitions of evidence (and that's understandable), but personally, I don't put qualifiers in front of it. "Object A" is either evidence for a claim or it is not. It is not weak, bad, less than credible, etc. Considering that the thread title is "Evolution", I'm less than interested in what a lawyer or ad agent has managed to wrangle for a definition Pad.

[Phil]

The bible makes claims, it does not provide evidence.

Here we go yet again; evidence is NOT a synonym for proof,merely ANYTHING provided in support of a claim.

Citing the bible IS evidence. What it is not is CREDIBLE evidence or proof.

Drip the the apologist insists on citing the bible because that is safe and comforting. To face the inherent problems in his personal superstitions is far too threatening.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

You seriously believe this?

Does this mean my citing the movie Avatar is evidence there is a planet Pandora? Does citing Harry Potter books give evidence that there really is a Archie Aymslowe? Does my citing the Michael Chrichton book Jurassic Park provide evidence that there really was a John Hammond?

Seriously? Did you think this belief through?

[mediamogul]

The only thing the bible is evidence of is the fact that religion exists. A fact that has been unfortunately proven again and again.