Searching for Ancient Truth

You didn't answer the question about the witness and the unicorn.

HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?: A Decision By New York State's Highest Court Reveals Unsettling Truths About Juries
Eyewitness Reliability in Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation
Gary Wells home page on eyewitness reliability
FAQ on eyewitness identification

Ok...you provide me with one independent way that you can check the validity of each of the first 6 items and I will provide a refutation of each instance of "independent" evidence.At EvC, one is not obligated to ignore witness evidence. Witness evidence just doesn't get any more weight than individual pieces of forensic evidence. It certainly doesn't outweigh ALL the forensic evidence. If you think it does then you must concur that a unicorn did kill Kennedy if a witness came forth and said so. As you wish. You can start with the top three common problems that you feel prevent the ranking of the likelyhood of individual explanations for ancient events.

I'm not talking about the quality of witness evidence, only the fact that if you have it when you have no other evidence it is great evidence to have.

In the case of geology and evolution, we do have other evidence, and it is better evidence than you ever can get with eye witnesses.

Well I dispute this. It all amounts in the end to unprovable interpretation and conjecture.

Sometimes when trying to respond quickly things get confused. You contradicted yourself in this sentence. You said you weren't talking about the quality, then proceeded to give a quality rating, "great",to witness evidence. Interestingly, you also said it is great when no other evidence is provided.
Does this mean it is not-so-great when other evidence is available?
How far down the scale does witness evidence fall?
Does it become as good as other evidence or does the relative rank of witness evidence depend on the perceived validity level of the other evidence?
By what criteria do you make a value judgement of the validity of witness and "other" evidence? Your response implies that you are familiar enough with all the evidence and knowledgeable enough in the fields of geology and evolution to make an educated judgement call on this. You have yet to show us why you think that the interpretation is unprovable so this amounts to a restatement of your own unsupported assertion, yet again.
Are you disputing the existence of the evidence?I would like to get off this side issue and tackle the idea of testable vs untestable as it applies to explanations of the ancient past. Specifically your reply to post 78, please state,

Hi Faith,I noticed that you seem to have more pies than fingers. However, this is a reminder that this thread awaits your return. No real hurry but I was hoping to get a response before the thread drops off the top 100 chart.

I don't think what I was saying was so complicated. Simply saying that if you don't have other evidence then witness evidence is a great thing to have. Not even getting into the quality of the witness evidence itself.Although I think witness evidence is good evidence in the case of the Bible events, but that isn't what I was saying here.As for disputing the evidence for geology, the part about witness evidence was not really relevant. I merely meant to say I dispute the evidence given on behalf of geologic timetable (not all geology) and the ToE (not all biology) etc. because it isn't really evidence, it's interpretation. {And I just got into a series of posts explaining what I mean by that, on the thread about the Grand Canyon rocks, starting with
#26, Fact versus Interpretation This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 07:41 AM