Faith in post 79 writes:
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.
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?
nwr in Post 80 writes:
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.
Faith, in reply, writes:
Well I dispute this. It all amounts in the end to unprovable interpretation and conjecture.
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,
...the top three common problems that you feel prevent the ranking of the likelyhood of individual explanations for ancient events.
™ Version 4.2