The Nature Of Evidence

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 themWe 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.

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.

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.

All you can observe is the scientist's work on paper, theorizing what one might think happened.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.