Hi Faith,
As I proposed to Marc, if there's really to be a discussion between the two sides of the nature of scientific evidence, then someone should propose a new thread. Here in this thread I'll just say that no one's misreading what you write, your claim that the "UNWITNESSED / PREHISTORIC PAST" somehow make it indeciperable is just a bald declaration, and that in your example the people you're calling witnesses are not witnesses but are just people who might be called to testify at a trial.
Continuing with the example of the forensics expert, if you decide to propose a new thread then you must focus on the difference between a forensics expert analyzing clues from last week and a geologist analyzing clues from past geologic eras.
Faith writes:
Sigh. Pass the Mylanta please.
Trust me when I say that there's a lot less stress when the evidence is on your side. You've set yourself a very heavy task when you have to make stuff up while hiding the fact it's made up, and then convince other people it's real in opposition to all evidence. As you've conceded, you can't even convince your own people. Seems like first convincing your own people would be a natural starting point.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.