The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

In the context of this discussion, no; I'm not making a claim here about the validity of the testimony of Scripture.  I am discussing a problem I see in the discussion

Just so I understand you:

You are NOT making any claims about the validity of the scripture. But, you ARE trying to make points about (in you words):  "the validity of witness testimony as evidence, and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking."

1.  So,  I'm WRONG to infer from your above statement in quotations that you are in favor of witness testimony as reliable evidence that bible scripture is an accurate accounting of history?  I stand corrected and shall keep that in mind going forward.  [emoji56]

2. "Flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking," is a straw-man; at least if it's directed at me, seeing as I clearly stated in my previous response to you that I do not consider witness testimony to be irrelevant.  Need I quote myself?

You could just go off of what I'm saying in this discussion, and keep assumptions to a minimum. You know have a discussion, and see where it goes.

Did you read past the title of the article you cited?

Uh...did you?  

"But how reliable is eyewitness testimony? A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.

For decades, researchers have been trying to nail down what influences eyewitness testimony and how much confidence to place in it...As Loftus puts it, "just because someone says something confidently doesn't mean it's true." Jurors can't help but find an eyewitness’s confidence compelling, even though experiments have shown that a person's confidence in their own memory is sometimes undiminished even in the face of evidence that their memory of an event is false."

Since you'd like to keep this discussion strictly focused on the reliability of eye-witness testimony, how is the above excerpt NOT relevant to this conversation?

I did read it (as well as a number of similar ones in the past)... It deals with lineups, and the ability of a person to pick a stranger out of a line up. I largely agree. I think that if a person got a good look at the person in question, that the chosen suspect will look fairly similar to the actual person, but can understand where there may be error here. This article didn't go into much detail on the issue of confidence about things that where false. However from other similar articles, this may be a small detail that is remembered incorrectly or altered by other circumstances afterwards (in which your article also discusses somewhat). How do you think I should apply these to stories about evidence for evolution?

Ok... if testimony is not sufficient evidence.   So then the testimony about data written in books (or a database) from scientific tests is not sufficient either... correct?

Incorrect, lol, because the "testimony" or conclusions drawn from scientific research are backed by the ACTUAL data!   How are you not getting this?  

Are the words "test" and "data" magic?

No...they represent real work that actual scientists do every day to test theories about our reality AGAINST realty.

You are getting closer to what I think your position is, which is begging the question. (still holding out though on the principle of charity).... What evidence do you have that these are backed by [i] actual data /i]?

It appears that in both cases, we have a transfer of information about what we didn't personally experience, but based on what another observed.  If these are not sufficient evidence, then that would leave me with only what I have seen as evidence.

I just got done telling you that you have access to original research anywhere on the net.  You can observe it yourself.  It's not a secret or a conspiracy.  All you have to do look at it.  Any particular reason you keep ignoring this point?  

You also ignored my point about how science text would look if it were written with ONLY testimony and no supporting evidence.  Why is that?  Would you trust your doctor to prescribe you a medication that has never been tested in a lab, simply because he told you he "knew" it was safe...because a bunch of other doctors swore it was?  

How do you know, that it was tested in a lab.... do you have sufficient evidence that it was?

I can understand if you feel like you are talking to a brick wall... I often feel the same way, when I encounter these types sophism and selective hyper-skepticism.  You really can't win in these types of discussions (at least in the mind of the opposition).  I think that I am being fairly generous in allowing you to make the rules,  I only ask, that we don't shift the goal posts and be consistent.

Demanding the highest grade of scientific evidence before believing in things like talking donkeys, walking on water, magical fruit, and zombies is being a "hyper-skeptic"?!   Then I'll happily wear that label, I guess.  Oh wait, we aren't talking about Christianity, right?  Wouldn't want to go shifting those goal posts on you again.  [emoji6]

I think that you are making a category mistake.... asking for scientific evidence for a historical claim. But if you would like my opinion on those things in the context of the discussion, then you could ask?