What is the nature of books that can be used as 'evidence' of claims about the universe?

I ask as people keep referring to certain books when being asked for evidence about certain claims.

NB evidence must be able to distinguish between a claim being true or false.

Would such a nature apply equally to all books? If not, why not?
Update: @The_doc_man: Books on physics may describe theories, but they're still not evidence themselves. It's the measured data that is the evidence, e.g. from telescopes, particle accelerators, experiments, etc.
Update 2: I'm thinking more typically of claims of gods, and those who claim that some book is 'evidence' of them. How can such a book be used as evidence?
Update 3: @brb: The written account of the evidence is still not the evidence itself, just a reference to it. We wouldn't rely on the book as evidence if we wanted to test the claim. It's the actual measurements that are the evidence.
Update 4: @hockeyfreak: No, I don't accept that the Quran describes the Big Bang Theory. Some have tried to 'spin' the Quran's claims so as to match it, but so badly that it's obviously very wrong. That's just a disingenuous attempt at post-justification. There's still no actual evidence in the... show more @hockeyfreak: No, I don't accept that the Quran describes the Big Bang Theory. Some have tried to 'spin' the Quran's claims so as to match it, but so badly that it's obviously very wrong. That's just a disingenuous attempt at post-justification. There's still no actual evidence in the Quran, as the BBT is derived from observational evidence.
Update 5: @Locadakota: Nope, far from it. The Galilean moons of Jupiter can even be seen with good binoculars. It's those observations that are the evidence, though, not any book describing them.
Update 6: @i ♣ seals: If you're a doctor using a book, you're relying on being confident that the authors are accurately describing the reality. That's still not evidence, as that would be their actual research measurements. They could make mistakes in the telling of it, and it would take actual measurements to... show more @i ♣ seals: If you're a doctor using a book, you're relying on being confident that the authors are accurately describing the reality. That's still not evidence, as that would be their actual research measurements. They could make mistakes in the telling of it, and it would take actual measurements to reveal what is correct. The claims of books are only as good as the telling of the evidence behind them; they are not the evidence themselves.
Update 7: @ЅѧϮѧﬡ`§ ДѴΞПБΞЯ: Not necessarily; books are for communication; they may communicate well-accepted, validated theories as well as nonsense. My issue is that a means of communication is not the same as actual testable evidence.
Update 8: @OurScott: Ah, no, your books are just your claim of what you did and the results you got. If I doubt them, I could repeat the same experiments to see if the results turn out the same; it would be those measured results which are the evidence. This is why science uses peer-review, so any claims (written in a book... show more @OurScott: Ah, no, your books are just your claim of what you did and the results you got. If I doubt them, I could repeat the same experiments to see if the results turn out the same; it would be those measured results which are the evidence. This is why science uses peer-review, so any claims (written in a book or otherwise) are independently verified (or refuted) by going after the measurable evidence. The claims would have to be precise enough to be tested, otherwise they'd just not be not taken seriously. So, your book is nothing more than a description of your findings, not the findings themselves.
9 answers 9