Witness Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you are mistaken, I'm not making any argument against utilizing all the evidence and evaluating them in light of their strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not saying that witness testimony always trumps the other physical evidence left behind (that is going to depend on specifics to the case).  There are weaknesses in what the physical evidence can tell you...  With many things you will need to make inferences based on that evidence.  For instance, someone mentioned gun powder tests to determine if I had shot a gun in the previous example.   I live in North central Pennsylvania in the middle of hunting season.  Most people I know have fired a gun recently.  DNA can be transferred and indicate the wrong person.  Nothing is perfect when humans are involved.

That would be a great alibi... "I've been hunting recently officer" -but it would take more than your word to make it hold, and it wouldn't explain how your bullet got into his leg, lol.

As well, I do believe that you can make a strong case using abductive reasoning. However, I think that direct observation and testimony is often better than inference.  I don't believe in scientism and do not elevate science to unreasonable heights nor think it is the only method of determining truth.  It is a useful tool in determining some forms of truth, and so long as it is valid (science is full of discarded theories, once thought to be true).

Then what you think is directly at odds with any study done on the subject, as has already been mentioned.  Eyewitness testimony is simply unreliable.  Not sure how scientism made it's way in here, but if science were less reliable, or unreliable...that wouldn't make eyewitness testimony any -more- reliable.  

Actually, I'm only skeptical of common descent.  I don't make an argument against it, but I'm not convinced by the inferences that it has, and often find them circular (try explaining common descent without invoking itself).  I guess it wasn;I do lean slightly against it, because I believe that the fossil record shows punctuated equilibrium, and fails to demonstrate common descent.  It's just fun to argue, that because I have not seen the thousands of fossils and physical evidence, that I can some how claim it is all a myth, the result of lies or delusions.   I do find it's claims extraordinary especially when presented in a naturalistic sense.  For some, that means I can just ignore evidence and claim there is none.  But I find most of the people who use the "extraordinary claimes" philosophy do not accept it in this case.

Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to say for or against common descent, and the fossil record isn't the primary or best evidence -for- common descent.  That would be DNA.   Your objections are non-objections........?  If that's why you're skeptical, then you're skeptical for no reason at all.