|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature Of Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Evidence can be based on actual visible physical observance of objects, alleged events or derived from non-visible relativity, quantum or math theories.
The nature of the above two evidences is that things physically observed, such as archeological discoveries, historical events, perhaps foretold before the fact, sometimes millenniums ago or labratory studies on things etc. BB theory, and biogenisis of life, followed by the earliest organisms are examples of evidence derived by more abstract methodology such as string, math or quantum. The nature of this evidence tends to be less empirical, imo, because it has never been physically observed, leaving other options which might also explain origins of life and positions about the Universe, whether it is finite or infinite in time etc. . Biblicalist evidence relies more on, eye witnesses accounts of fulfilled prophecy, such as the unprecedented scattering of the Jews, to be regathered after over 19 centuries to restore their original tiny nation, surrounded by hostile gentile nations who, time and again collectively attempt to destroy them We who are Biblical scholars, apprised in prophecy and of many archeological discoveries tend to apply pysically observed data whereas, the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone. So these are the nature of the two types of evidence that comes to mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the The Nature Of Evidence thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
ABE - I don't recall what Admin's restriction agreement with Buzsaw is/was, but Buz has no software forum restrictions in place. As I see it, Buz is free to debate in this topic. The other science topics - I don't know. People, be nice. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ABE.Or something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
Can you supply an example of this? ...the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Biblicalist evidence relies more on, eye witnesses accounts of fulfilled prophecy, such as the unprecedented scattering of the Jews, to be regathered after over 19 centuries to restore their original tiny nation, surrounded by hostile gentile nations who, time and again collectively attempt to destroy them Do you have any evidence of fulfilled prophecy? Can you provide us the Chapter and Verses that contain the prophecy?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Evidence can be based on actual visible physical observance of objects,
Why do you deny the other sense?God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Panda writes: Can you supply an example of this? I gave examples in my OP, Panda. Did you read it? I cited the alleged BB, biogenesis and early life, i.e. early forms of alleged evolving life. As for QM even the guru of QM, Richard Feynman admited that he didn't fully understand aspects of his own QM threory.BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Those are not examples of secularist minded people having to rely on abstract theories. I gave examples in my OP, Panda.Those are just examples of theories that you do not understand. They are not abstract - they are based on real observations. Just because you refuse to understand them does not make them abstract. So, I repeat: can you supply examples of where "secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories"?
Buzsaw writes:
Please quote me referring to quantum mechanics. As for QM... Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I see two of my usual dogging yada posting trolls are weighing in. Jar wouldn't ever acknowledge a whit of the evidence I've cited over the years and Jonsey, well, his little half liner made no sense. You two can either run along or post something substantive.
Perhaps Jar might apprise us all on the nature (I say nature) of some evidences which he has denied, This thread is not intended to be derailed on any other topic in depth, but what about the nature of my example of Israel's latter day return from global dispersion does he find problematic enough so as to deny it? I find the nature of the alleged zero, event problematic, in that it had no properties capabable of existence. IMO the nature of it is that it is a scientific impossibility, so far having no model. Comparing observable evidence such as the prophesied latter day marks and numbers global monetary phenomena to abstract un-observable evidence is like comparing a Model T Ford to an Axexis automobile. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Panda writes: ...they are based on real observations All you can observe is the scientist's work on paper, theorizing what one might think happened. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
... Jonsey, well, his little half liner made no sense. You two can either run along or post something substantive.
It shows that you're full of shit when you automatically discount the other senses by insisting on a reliance on visual evidence. If you're ignoring the evidence provided by the other senses then why should anyone take what you have to say seriously?God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
There are many criticisms I could make of your post Buz. It rather I will deal with the real issues.
There are two issues here: 1) Assertions are not observations. False assertions should not be treated as evidence - at least not in any way that presumes their truth. Nor should assertions which are merely assumed. 2) There needs to be a sound chain of reasoning connecting the alleged evidence to the conclusion (this is probably what you are really talking about when you are talking about theory as evidence). This chain should explain why the alleged evidence gives us a reason to favour the conclusion. I submit that you have frequently fallen down on both parts. And your failure to recognise this is one of your biggest problems here. If you believe otherwise, I am quite happy to address any axamples that you wish to produce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
We who are Biblical scholars, apprised in prophecy and of many archeological discoveries tend to apply pysically observed data whereas, the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone. Sure Buz. So when a Bible scholar contends that there were dark and light periods on earth before the sun and moon even existed, what evidence is he relying on? What physically observed data supports that finding? To practice of science is to take facts and draw the conclusions possible from the facts. Where more than one conclusion is viable from a set of facts, it may turn out that additional facts rule out alternative conclusions. But evidence first and foremost consists of facts. You just don't seem to be able to get passed this blind spot. Evidence is not derived from those facts or from theories. Evidence is facts that make it more likely that a proposition is correct and less likely that an alternative is correct. Conclusions and theories are drawn from evidence. The Big Bang theory is not evidence. Evolution and common descent (which for some reason you are mislabeling as biogenesis) are not evidence. They are explanations consistent with the evidence. And all evidence is empirical. Hebrews 11:1 is poetic license and not a dictionary definition. Excuses for why there is no evidence also aren't evidence, but perhaps that can be discussed later.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Buz writes: So these are the nature of the two types of evidence that comes to mind. The process of proving an assertion - such as proving that the crossing of the red sea by the parting of the waters is factually true - is exactly the same as proving any kind of assertion. The burden of proof lies with the claimant and his evidence supporting the assertion must be testable, objective and independent. Any kind of supporting evidence can be weak or strong, multiple or single, direct or circumstantial and so on, and we have to work out on the sprectrum of probability where it lies. Criminal law has an extremely high burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt or 'such that you are sure'. Science has an even higher standard where an idea has to be the equivalent of an uncontestable fact, supported by a vast body of testable evidence, before it's elevated to the status of theory. And even then it can be challenged and changed. On the other hand religious belief is supported by very weak and highly contested evidence - it's at the other end of the spectrum; in law it would be called circumstantial (at best.) It's not that the stuff you talk about isn't evidence, it's more that it's highly biased, cherry picked and un-supported by real fact. You want something to be true and are prepared to accept any kind of weak and non-substantial findings to support it. That's no way to try convince a sceptic; what that kind of evidence is for, is to confirm a bias - to keep the faith in other words, not to fulfil the burden of proof obligation.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator
|
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person. Argue the position and not the person. Show the errors or flaws in your opponents facts or logic. That goes for all participants.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread. Thank youAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Is It Science? forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024