What is evidence?

[Czernobog]

As I review the many discussions between theists, and atheists over the question of the existence of God, the issue always seems to boil down to the question of what is meant by the term "evidence". So, what, then is "evidence", and what is the purpose? Is evidence a subjective term whose only purpose is to convince one's self of a position, or is evidence an outward objective quality used to prove, or disprove a position to others looking for answers to questions?

Logically, it seems to me that when one asks for evidence of a thing, they are asking for a quantifiable, verifiable quality that determines the rational expectation for the resolution of a question. For this reason there are various types of evidence, some more rational than others.

 

[norwegen]

The evident is the obvious. Sadly, some Christians substitute a word for it that is more definitive, namely proof.

 

[Czernobog]

The evident is the obvious. Sadly, some Christians substitute a word for it that is more definitive, namely proof.

I would argue that evidence is not always "evident". However it should be recognisable as evidence by anyone reviewing it. For instance, "I know God exists, because I hear his voice," Fantastic! That implies that there is a sound. RECORD IT! Let everyone hear it, and evaluate it. That would be evidence!

 

[Penelope]

The evident is the obvious. Sadly, some Christians substitute a word for it that is more definitive, namely proof.

There is no proof, none.

 

[Czernobog]

The evident is the obvious. Sadly, some Christians substitute a word for it that is more definitive, namely proof.

There is no proof, none.

You see, when we change the subject to "prof", I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. There may, indeed, be "proof". After all, evidence would be "proof" of the existence of God. However, first we must define, and understand what constitutes evidence. Hence, my OP.

 

[Czernobog]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

 

[RWNJ]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

 

[westwall]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

 

[RWNJ]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

 

[westwall]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

 

[RWNJ]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

 

[westwall]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

 

[Czernobog]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

 

[RWNJ]

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

 

[westwall]

There is? Where? I agree that spontaneous generation is highly unlikely, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is impossible.

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.

 

[RWNJ]

Peruse this. It's not scientific evidence, but it is pretty compelling. The gist of the argument is that living systems, a cell for instance, contain a biological computer; with DNA as the language or computer program. It is understood that nature cannot create a computer by itself, since computers work by symbolic processing. Symbols are arbitrary, but they work in computational systems. DNA is a language, and nature is incapable of creating language on it's own. Every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds. I'm explaining this poorly, but just read the article and make up your own mind.

On the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.

I think you're missing the point. Nature is incapable of creating a self-replicating universal constructor. It would be required, first of all, to create the computer itself. Then it would need to create the programming for it. BTW, did you know that every time a new protein is created, it contains a genetic tag that actually tells it where to go? Also, do you have any idea how proteins are made? Not only is the correct genetic sequence recquired, the protein folds itself into complicated three dimensional shapes. They cannot do this without other proteins called protein chaperones. They detect and correct folding errors. I could go on and on about the complexity of cells. How about gene regulatory networks? Do you know what they are? They are complex beyond belief. And each one is part of a larger meta network These GRN's are responsible for regulating how and when proteins are created. Here's what you should consider. If just one component of this network is missing, the cell will not work properly or even die. So there is no way it could have evolved. Everything has to be in place and working at the same time, or the cell dies. Here is what a GRN looks like.

How anyone can honestly believe something like this evolved is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Taz]

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.

I think you're missing the point. Nature is incapable of creating a self-replicating universal constructor. It would be required, first of all, to create the computer itself. Then it would need to create the programming for it. BTW, did you know that every time a new protein is created, it contains a genetic tag that actually tells it where to go? Also, do you have any idea how proteins are made? Not only is the correct genetic sequence recquired, the protein folds itself into complicated three dimensional shapes. They cannot do this without other proteins called protein chaperones. They detect and correct folding errors. I could go on and on about the complexity of cells. How about gene regulatory networks? Do you know what they are? They are complex beyond belief. And each one is part of a larger meta network These GRN's are responsible for regulating how and when proteins are created. Here's what you should consider. If just one component of this network is missing, the cell will not work properly or even die. So there is no way it could have evolved. Everything has to be in place and working at the same time, or the cell dies. Here is what a GRN looks like.

How anyone can honestly believe something like this evolved is beyond ridiculous.

Good thing that you’re here to tell us what nature can and can’t do! Please don’t go.

 

[westwall]

This is opinion and not fact. Abiogenesis is indeed a improbable event, however, over billions of years of random chance, the odds are that something would happen. There is no evidence that says this can't be true.

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.

I think you're missing the point. Nature is incapable of creating a self-replicating universal constructor. It would be required, first of all, to create the computer itself. Then it would need to create the programming for it. BTW, did you know that every time a new protein is created, it contains a genetic tag that actually tells it where to go? Also, do you have any idea how proteins are made? Not only is the correct genetic sequence recquired, the protein folds itself into complicated three dimensional shapes. They cannot do this without other proteins called protein chaperones. They detect and correct folding errors. I could go on and on about the complexity of cells. How about gene regulatory networks? Do you know what they are? They are complex beyond belief. And each one is part of a larger meta network These GRN's are responsible for regulating how and when proteins are created. Here's what you should consider. If just one component of this network is missing, the cell will not work properly or even die. So there is no way it could have evolved. Everything has to be in place and working at the same time, or the cell dies. Here is what a GRN looks like.

How anyone can honestly believe something like this evolved is beyond ridiculous.

Why do you make that claim? As a philosophical question it is interesting, but it is not supported by evidence. We know that evolution occurs. We have actual, real evidence for that. We have zero evidence for your claim however. We have the opinion of some people, but opinions are not facts. For the longest time it was assumed that teleportation was a fantasy. Even Einstein despised the fact that his calculations showed that it would be possible, recently, the scientists working on the project have been able to teleport a photon to orbit.

What we considered magic until only a few years ago is now possible.

That is the problem with peoples opinions. Eventually, in almost every case I can recall, a technological advance has come along to make the fanciful possible, and the ridiculous common.




"Today, the Micius team announced the results of its first experiments. The team created the first satellite-to-ground quantum network, in the process smashing the record for the longest distance over which entanglement has been measured. And they’ve used this quantum network to teleport the first object from the ground to orbit.

Teleportation has become a standard operation in quantum optics labs around the world. The technique relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement. This occurs when two quantum objects, such as photons, form at the same instant and point in space and so share the same existence. In technical terms, they are described by the same wave function."

A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

 

[RWNJ]

You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?

I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.

So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.

Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.

I think you're missing the point. Nature is incapable of creating a self-replicating universal constructor. It would be required, first of all, to create the computer itself. Then it would need to create the programming for it. BTW, did you know that every time a new protein is created, it contains a genetic tag that actually tells it where to go? Also, do you have any idea how proteins are made? Not only is the correct genetic sequence recquired, the protein folds itself into complicated three dimensional shapes. They cannot do this without other proteins called protein chaperones. They detect and correct folding errors. I could go on and on about the complexity of cells. How about gene regulatory networks? Do you know what they are? They are complex beyond belief. And each one is part of a larger meta network These GRN's are responsible for regulating how and when proteins are created. Here's what you should consider. If just one component of this network is missing, the cell will not work properly or even die. So there is no way it could have evolved. Everything has to be in place and working at the same time, or the cell dies. Here is what a GRN looks like.

How anyone can honestly believe something like this evolved is beyond ridiculous.

Why do you make that claim? As a philosophical question it is interesting, but it is not supported by evidence. We know that evolution occurs. We have actual, real evidence for that. We have zero evidence for your claim however. We have the opinion of some people, but opinions are not facts. For the longest time it was assumed that teleportation was a fantasy. Even Einstein despised the fact that his calculations showed that it would be possible, recently, the scientists working on the project have been able to teleport a photon to orbit.

What we considered magic until only a few years ago is now possible.

That is the problem with peoples opinions. Eventually, in almost every case I can recall, a technological advance has come along to make the fanciful possible, and the ridiculous common.




"Today, the Micius team announced the results of its first experiments. The team created the first satellite-to-ground quantum network, in the process smashing the record for the longest distance over which entanglement has been measured. And they’ve used this quantum network to teleport the first object from the ground to orbit.

Teleportation has become a standard operation in quantum optics labs around the world. The technique relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement. This occurs when two quantum objects, such as photons, form at the same instant and point in space and so share the same existence. In technical terms, they are described by the same wave function."

A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

You're getting off topic here. We're talking about the origin of life. Here's a little something that explains things better. And it's by a scientist. It's a bit long, but after reading, you should drop this nonsense about naturalistic origins of life. It just ain't possible.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

 

[Czernobog]

You're getting off topic here.

Actually, you're the one who is off topic, and when I attempted to redirect you to the topic of the OP, you completely ignored me. Why is that?