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
™ Version 4.2
