Testimony is Evidence

[Thumpalumpacus]

But ... but ... it's testimony! It's evidence!

Just because you reject it doesn't reduce its probative value -- especially when it can be backed up with, ahem, evidence. And let's face it: there is plenty of evidence that testimony is the weakest form of evidence in those cases where it has any value at all.

The question was... what evidence, do you think I am rejecting?

The video presented. It was in the form of testimony, which you seem to value ... yet you reject it.

"I know you are, but what am I"? Dude, are you, like, five or something?

I think that you missed the point of the original statement by me as well.  Do you not think, that using testimony and anecdotes as evidence against using testimony as evidence shows some cognitive dissonance?  That the criticism of me rejecting the testimony (which I wasn't)  when that is what they are arguing for, is at least a little bit inconsistent?

There's a difference. Some testimony has supporting evidence. Other testimony doesn't. The testimony you were presented references other evidence. The testimony you're hoping to support has no other evidence.

I don't have a problem with testimony so long as it isn't the only evidence. You obviously think that some testimony can and does stand on its own.

As I said -- I saw an invisible dragon in my garage when I got home from work tonight. When you understand why you don't take that testimony at face value, you'll understand why your appeal to testimony falls flat, absent supporting evidence. You cannot testify Christ into existence. You can only believe for yourself.

Testimony is not always evidence, and even when it is, it is the least-trustworthy compared to other forms.