Ok, this is an interesting question: if information A leads Person A to believe in Answer A, then that information is being considered as evidence for that answer by that person. BUT - if Answer A is known to be demonstrably false, OR if information A leads everybody else to answer B, or doesn't lead anybody else anywhere, THEN - is that information still evidence?

There are people who say the beauty of the world is evidence for deity, for instance. Most of us data folk restrict the word Evidence to replicable data, as in an increase in reaction time is Evidence for an increase in cognitive function. Also most of ua atheists consider the beauty of the world inevitable to us since we all evolved together, and would not consider it to bear on the existence of deity.

Evidence I would accept, Joe, would be replicable. But I would argue that semantically, what you have that you call evidence I wouldn't accept is rather not, to me, evidence at all.

Kinda like the word Theory. Evolution may be a theory but it is not theoretical, like gravity, which is also a theory.