I get the utterly irrelevant response from Jon that "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" as if that had anything whatever to do with the point,
Sorry, but it's very relevant. We can't trust what eyewitnesses claim. Today, yesterday, a century ago, 2000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, the time frame doesn't matter. Eyeitnesses are unreliable.
God has told us that we are to study His creation and His creation is reliable.
Eyewitnesses are not reliable. The traces left by past events are reliable.
Period.
There are plenty of witnesses of all kinds to help the forensic investigator decipher the clues of a case. There are legal documents, case histories, and yes even scientific documents that may help in a particular case and are in the sense I'm using the word "witnesses.
OK, so now you are acknowledging the traces left by past events are "witnesses" and can be relied on. It's a start. Now try applying it.
Historical Geology studies things that exist in a time frame where there are no witnesses of any sort whatever.
By your definition, the rocks are witnesses.
quote:
Witness:
1. a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.
2. a person giving sworn testimony to a court of law or the police.synonyms: deponent, testifier More"she cross-examined the witness"
3. a person who is present at the signing of a document and signs it themselves to confirm this.
4. evidence; proof. "the memorial service was witness to the wide circle of his interest".
Apparently you are using the fourth definition. I've been using the first. But that's fine. All you have to do is acknowledge that the rocks are witnesses by your definition.
But all the hooha about how and when they lived is just wild interpretation, which you can get away with because there are no witnesses in the sense I'm using that word to correct you if you're wrong. No dinosaur wrote an account of the Great Extinction event as he saw it coming, as the sky was darkening and his fellow creatures were suffocating.
Whoops, now you're equivocating. You just said that a witness need not be an observer. Now you are denying your earlier definition. Make up your mind.
You CAN go on multiplying error indefinitely because of the -- shall we say -- flexibility of interpretations, and the momentum gained by the particular interpretive scheme you've adopted that is shared by all your colleagues.
Merely revealing your abysmal ignorance.
Oh how I dread the nonsense THIS post is going to elicit. Aaagh.
You should stop posting nonsense.