What is the religious meaning of 'evidence'?

As promised in another thread, and because there is such dispute about what is acceptable evidence, I am now making inquiry into what is the religious meaning of the word 'evidence'. This is a religious thread, and any cited information that is not coming from a religious source will not be accepted as being on topic in this discussion. Allowable sources outside of the religious realm will be limited to standardized dictionaries and or encyclopedias, but such inclusions must directly pertain to the subject matter.

Can anyone explain what is the religious meaning of the word 'evidence'?

 

Now this is just plumb pitiful. With all of these so-called intelligent people on this forum and none have even attempted to give a religious meaning of the word "evidence"... Now you would think that with all the clamor about 'evidence' of this and 'evidence' of that, that someone would be able to offer an explanation ... a religious explanation...

 

I'm no religious authority but I thought I would ask why there would need to be a distinction between a religious meaning for evidence and any other thing we would call evidence or any thing a nonreligious person would call evidence otherwise.

 

Well, you did ask religious people only.

 

Here's your problem, you used the words "evidence" and "religious" in the same sentence. Thats akin to using smart and george w bush in the same sentence....its just not done.

 

Is there a difference between religious and non- religious evidence?

Isn't evidence, evidence?

 

no such thing

No such thing as a 'religious meaning' to much of anything.

then go lay by your dish!

the op is a troll as it is not intented for good, but trying to discount truth for a lie

no such thing

the word 'evidence' is manmade just like religions are too: There is the evidence.

 

Because this is a religious thread and a Religion sub-forum of the PF. Purpose: to discuss 'religious' issues... not secular. Even if a subject matter is what could be construed as 'secular', when it has religious overtones or a direct connection to religion, then it also becomes one which is 'religious' and subsequently would fall within the confines of 'religious discussion'; bearing all the rights, privileges and restrictions of "religious discussion" (which includes keeping the discussion focused on 'religion').

 

Not true. I believe you will not find such language in the OP.

 

Why? Is there some form of Religious restraint that disallows the use of those words in the same sentence? If so, please provide the commanding authority wherein such a restraint is officially announced to the whole world.

 

Well, that is the purpose of this discussion.... to find the answer to that question as well as the the question of the OP.

 

Well, the word "Atheism" is also man made. So, using your logic, then I suppose that 'Atheism' has no religious meaning. For that matter, because it is man made, then it should really have no import at all, because "Atheism" is not something that is found in nature. If "Atheism" can be found in nature, then why has "Atheism" not been placed on the Periodic Table of Elements, or otherwise classified as either plant, mineral, animal, etc.?

 

I think I am the only one who understands what you are getting at...

I do think there is a difference. Evidence in what we know needs to be justified by things to make it evidence. Since we have no way of knowing what happened two thousand years ago, we can't really say that anything is evidence really. But, you will hear people argue about evidence for a book written some fifteen hundred year ago.

I feel, based on my own understanding of both, there is a difference and should be. What we used to use back in the day does not apply to how we think today.

Incorporeal - question: What does there need to be BEFORE we can say anything is evidence or not? Or should I say - how do we determine evidence for anything - court case - evolution - who ate the last Doritos...?

 

Please do not get him/her started... PLEASE!!!

 

Evidence is not a necessary part of religion. Religion is based on belief and faith.

 

Anyone who were compatible at the time. Fused chromosomes do not necessarily have any effect on fertility. Quite the contrary, it rarely does. You may want to look up such combinations yourself, though, as it's hardly fair to this thread to pursue it here, to name one reason of many. For example, take a look at the phenomenon called Robertsonian translocation. It's more common than you'd probably think.

The real question that people with real interests ask is how the fusion became as successful as it did since so many fusions come and go without any propagational success. The question you posed is only of significance to creationists, who still wallow in the ignorance that they must maintain at any price.

Since the chromosome 2 fusion would mark a commencing split between the genus Homo and the other hominids, it would probably have happened earlier than the entry of Homo sapiens, don't you think?

 

It is funny, but it is what you believe... that over a course of who knows how long, that Jack Black sprouted wings and delivered his seed unto all to get the Chromosome 2 fusion!

Maybe back then it was easier because we fertilized women like fish do, all he had to do is magically fly to Australia and all those remote places and "spray" his seed down upon them!

How do you think Chromo 2 inhabited the whole planet when there was isolated peoples?

 

HA HA !!!! Exactly!!! It would, thus one might think that there might be "something missing" that we evolved from and not the within the classification of apes. There might be another lifeform, that we have not discovered (along with the presumed ape ancestor) that we evolved from that might have this fusion!

And once we find it, which we probably will, all of evolution again will have to change what they said previously, but keep the idea of evolution - they just misplaced Homosapien sapien is all...

 

Fused chromosomes and non fused chromosome species can mate? Which ones? Since know only of a couple that cannot, I might be missing a couple - want to ramble off those that can?

Okay - there is us - tangs, chimps and rilla's.... that cannot mate and this we are at - 0 for 3...

 

Since the Chimpanzee has 48 chromosomes an Humans have 46, the fusion happened AFTER humans and chimps split off from our common ancestor.

Simple really!

 

See where we split off of Hominini??? You can see right?

The fusion happend AFTER the split.

 

I have no idea what you mean with "another lifeform" but if you're referring to yet a step from the split to Homo then the evolution of humans would of course have to be adjusted to such finds. I don't see any problem in that, evolutionary-wise.

 

You didn't look up Robertsonian translocations, did you?

 

A witness or a sworn testimony by two or more people. Or, in the circumstance of personal experience, the sworn testimony of that one person relating to only what was experienced.

 

Your pinned in a corner about your religion and hate it... But, oh - I am not EVEN CLOSE to being done with you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

Let us look folks shall we? American Beaver - Eurasia Beaver (cousin across the ocean)... 40 Chromosomes - other 48 chromosomes...

Want to continue? Let's...

Donkey 62 - Horse 64

Deer mouse 48 - mouse 40

Hare 48 - Rabbit 44


I'll stop right there for now... Now... Where are these fused chromosomes with these very like species? Explain how evolution deleted WHOLE chromosomes and/or added 10's fo billions of nucleotides? Or deleted - is there someone holding a Alt+Ctrl+Del button somewhere during fertilization?

Straight comedy... Those who believe in Darwin's religion are funny acting like you know anything about anything...

So, hold on to your religious ridiculousness and KEEP ON TRUCKIN!!!!

Chromosome 2... HA!!! funny...