Evidence

Evidence is a funny thing, for example evidence for seeing what
someone ate last night could be found in a number of places, I'll
leave it up to you to list a couple if you feel the need to. The
evidence will be some sort of sign or foot print left behind that
many will agree upon, we know if you ate this or that we
could or would find this or that here or there. The stronger the
argument about what we should or could find the stronger the
evidence. Evidence because of our knowledge of the subject at hand
will be good or bad, depending upon what we know about the subject.

So if you have no direct or even indirect knowledge about the subject
at hand, would you be able to recognize evidence for the topic you
have no history to draw upon? If we were to talk about something else
that you’ve never experienced would you know evidence if it were to
be right in front of you?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evidence is a funny thing, for example evidence for seeing what
someone ate last night could be found in a number of places, I'll
leave it up to you to list a couple if you feel the need to. The
evidence will be some sort of sign or foot print left behind that
many will agree upon, we know if you ate this or that we
could or would find this or that her ...[text shortened]... ou’ve never experienced would you know evidence if it were to
be right in front of you?
Kelly

We can tell what Ötzi (the iceman) ate for his two last meals in 3,300 BCE. From Wikipedia:

Analysis of Ötzi's intestinal contents showed two meals (the last one about eight hours before his death), one of chamois meat, the other of red deer meat. Both were eaten with some grain as well as some roots and fruits. The grain from both meals was a highly processed einkorn wheat bran, quite possibly eaten in the form of bread. There were also a few kernels of sloes (small plum-like fruits of the blackthorn tree). Hair analysis was used to examine his diet from several months before.

Pollen in the first meal showed that it had been consumed in a mid-altitude conifer forest, and other pollens indicated the presence of wheat and legumes, which may have been domesticated crops. Also, pollen grains of hop-hornbeam were discovered. The pollen was very well preserved, with even the cells inside still intact, indicating that it had been fresh (a few hours old) at the time of Ötzi's death, which places the event in the spring. Interestingly, einkorn wheat is harvested in the late summer, and sloes in the autumn; these must have been stored since the year before.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evidence is a funny thing, for example evidence for seeing what
someone ate last night could be found in a number of places, I'll
leave it up to you to list a couple if you feel the need to. The
evidence will be some sort of sign or foot print left behind that
many will agree upon, we know if you ate this or that we
could or would find this or that her ...[text shortened]... ou’ve never experienced would you know evidence if it were to
be right in front of you?
Kelly

Which is just a roundabout way of saying that the invisible fairy in your garage exists because you have all the evidence you need for it. If others can't see that evidence, or don't understand it, that's their problem. The fairy still exists ...

What a crock.

I'm going to need an example of "evidence you don't understand" thingummy, because I cannot think of any given case where scientific analysis doesn't yield a sufficient conclusion where evidence is concerned.

Originally posted by rwingett
We can tell what Ötzi (the iceman) ate for his two last meals in 3,300 BCE. From Wikipedia:

Analysis of Ötzi's intestinal contents showed two meals (the last one about eight hours before his death), one of chamois meat, the other of red deer meat. Both were eaten with some grain as well as some roots and fruits. The grain from both meals was a highly ...[text shortened]... e late summer, and sloes in the autumn; these must have been stored since the year before.

CSI BCE. I can't wait for the next episode!

Originally posted by amannion
Which is just a roundabout way of saying that the invisible fairy in your garage exists because you have all the evidence you need for it. If others can't see that evidence, or don't understand it, that's their problem. The fairy still exists ...

What a crock.

How did you get a invisible fairy out of what I said? You disagree with
what I said, or are you inserting your views, not about what I said, but
what you think I believe about God into this discussion? In other words
you have jumped into the mind reading not post reading area of life.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How did you get a invisible fairy out of what I said? You disagree with
what I said, or are you inserting your views,[b] not about what I said, but
what you think I believe about God into this discussion? In other words
you have jumped into the mind reading not post reading area of life.
Kelly[/b]

Kelly you truly are an idiot. (Although come to think of it, I'm sure I've said that before, so it's nothing new to you, is it?)
The invisible fairy was simply my attempt to demonstrate what you were getting at it which is pretty obvious in your original post.
If you don't want people to write about your posts, then don't post them in the first place.

Idiot!

id·i·ot /ˈɪdiət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME < L idi&#333;ta < Gk idités private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equiv. to idi&#333;- (lengthened var. of idio- idio-, perh. by analogy with strati&#333;tés professional soldier, deriv. of stratiá army) + -tés agent n. suffix]


—Synonyms 1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull.

Originally posted by josephw
Idiot!

id·i·ot /&#712;&#618;di&#601;t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelli ...[text shortened]... rmy) + -tés agent n. suffix]


—Synonyms 1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull.

Wow, this is incredibly insightful of you.
Thanks very much .... not.

Originally posted by amannion
Kelly you truly are an idiot. (Although come to think of it, I'm sure I've said that before, so it's nothing new to you, is it?)
The invisible fairy was simply my attempt to demonstrate what you were getting at it which is pretty obvious in your original post.
If you don't want people to write about your posts, then don't post them in the first place.

I have no doubt you have use words such as idiot before
either directed at me or others, from you it isn’t anything new.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
Which is just a roundabout way of saying that the invisible fairy in your garage exists because you have all the evidence you need for it. If others can't see that evidence, or don't understand it, that's their problem. The fairy still exists ...

What a crock.

What I was getting at is you must understand what it is you are
looking for to come up with a valid view of what type of things
are evidence or what isn't. Your interjecting invisible fairies not
withstanding, it is still true there should be some reason to accept
things as evidence, or some reason to reject things as evidence, If
you don’t know what kind of things represent evidence you haven’t
any logical reason to accept or reject things as evidence, this doesn’t
mean that there isn’t evidence all around us, only that we may not
understand what is a valid piece of evidence or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I was getting at is you must understand what it is you are
looking for to come up with a valid view of what type of things
you need to look for in order to say this is evidence or that isn't.
Your interjecting invisible fairies not withstanding, it is still true
there should be some reason to accept things as evidence, or
some reason to reject thi ...[text shortened]... ll around us, only that we may not
understand what is a valid piece of evidence or not.
Kelly

Which is exactly my point about invisible fairies.
There must be some sort of standard by which we accept evidence or not. Otherwise you can say anything you like is supported by evidence and I can do the same. Hence my jibe about invisible fairies.
Now, what I assumed you were alluding to is that evidence for god's existence is somehow only able to be seen and interpreted usefully by those with a particular viewpoint (read, those who believe in god). Those of us who don't believe and who ask for evidence are unable to see all of the evidence that exists. 'It's all around you, you idiots, why can't you see it?' you cry out to us.
But as I pointed out, what's the difference between this and belief in invisible fairies?

Originally posted by amannion
Which is exactly my point about invisible fairies.
There must be some sort of standard by which we accept evidence or not. Otherwise you can say anything you like is supported by evidence and I can do the same. Hence my jibe about invisible fairies.
Now, what I assumed you were alluding to is that evidence for god's existence is somehow only able to be se But as I pointed out, what's the difference between this and belief in invisible fairies?

If I were saying that you would have a point, my statement had both
sides of evidence in it, just as I said we have to agree what is a good
view on evidence to accept it as such there needs to be a valid reason
to reject something too. Other wise your "Those of us who don't
believe and who ask for evidence are unable to see all of the
evidence that exists." Is just a statement of faith too, you don't accept
or believe so nothing matters you can reject all that is brought before
you since nothing can force you to say this is good evidence, No
matter what is brought before you, it does not matter, logic does not
play into anything outside of what you want to accept or reject.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I were saying that you would have a point, my statement had both
sides of evidence in it, just as I said we have to agree what is a good
view on evidence to accept it as such there needs to be a valid reason
to reject something too. Other wise your "Those of us who don't
believe and who ask for evidence are unable to see all of the
evidence that exi ...[text shortened]... ter, logic does not
play into anything outside of what you want to accept or reject.
Kelly

Which takes me back to my point, there must be some kind of mutually agreed upon set of principles for determining if evidence is valid and reliable.
Currently we have one system for validating evidence which seems to work pretty well - science.
Now, you might be suggesting you have another, which is cool, but what is it and how does it work?

Originally posted by amannion
Which takes me back to my point, there must be some kind of mutually agreed upon set of principles for determining if evidence is valid and reliable.
Currently we have one system for validating evidence which seems to work pretty well - science.
Now, you might be suggesting you have another, which is cool, but what is it and how does it work?

Actually that was also my point as well and had you not injected your
mind reading abilities into this I think you would have seen it too.
Kelly