The proliferation of information disseminated by public/social media has made decision-making highly challenging due to the wide availability of noisy, uncertain, or unverified information. Although the issue of uncertainty in information has been studied for several decades, little work has investigated how noisy (or uncertain) or valuable (or credible) information can be formulated into people's opinions, modeling uncertainty both in the quantity and quality of evidence leading to a specific opinion. In this work, we model and analyze an opinion and information model by using Subjective Logic where the initial set of evidence is mixed with different types of evidence (i.e., pro vs. con or noisy vs. valuable) which is incorporated into the opinions of original propagators, who propagate information over a network. With the help of an extensive simulation study, we examine how the different ratios of information types or agents' prior belief or topic competence affect the overall information diffusion. Based on our findings, agents' high uncertainty is not necessarily always bad in making a right decision as long as they are competent enough not to be at least biased towards false information (e.g., neutral between two extremes).