Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature Of Evidence
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 17 (669183)
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Panda, posted 07-27-2012 8:49 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 07-27-2012 9:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 5 by DrJones*, posted 07-27-2012 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2012 4:57 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 07-28-2012 5:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 07-28-2012 6:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 07-28-2012 8:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 17 (669185)
07-27-2012 8:11 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 3 of 17 (669190)
07-27-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


buzsaw writes:
...the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone.
Can you supply an example of this?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 10:27 PM Panda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 17 (669192)
07-27-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


evidence?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 5 of 17 (669194)
07-27-2012 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


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 minds
soon 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 17 (669199)
07-27-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Panda
07-27-2012 8:49 PM


Re: Examples Of Non Observble Evidence.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Panda, posted 07-27-2012 8:49 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Panda, posted 07-27-2012 10:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 7 of 17 (669200)
07-27-2012 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 10:27 PM


Re: Examples Of Non Observble Evidence.
Buzsaw writes:
I gave examples in my OP, Panda.
Those are not examples of secularist minded people having to rely on abstract theories.
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:
As for QM...
Please quote me referring to quantum mechanics.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 10:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 11:30 PM Panda has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 17 (669204)
07-27-2012 11:14 PM


Re:: Nature Of Evidences Comparisons
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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DrJones*, posted 07-27-2012 11:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (669205)
07-27-2012 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Panda
07-27-2012 10:44 PM


Re: Examples Of Non Observble Evidence.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Panda, posted 07-27-2012 10:44 PM Panda has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 10 of 17 (669206)
07-27-2012 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 11:14 PM


Re: Re:: Nature Of Evidences Comparisons
... 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 minds
soon 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminPD, posted 07-28-2012 7:21 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 17 (669210)
07-28-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 17 (669212)
07-28-2012 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


Sigh.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 13 of 17 (669214)
07-28-2012 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 8:00 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 8:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 14 of 17 (669217)
07-28-2012 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DrJones*
07-27-2012 11:31 PM


Violation Rule #10
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 you
AdminPD Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DrJones*, posted 07-27-2012 11:31 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 17 (669219)
07-28-2012 7:55 AM


Thread Moved from Is It Science? Forum
Thread moved here from the Is It Science? forum.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024