Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

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 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.

(emphasis is mine)

Not only does he believe it stands on it's own, he has stated that he believes it's perfectly ok that testimony alone can be sufficient to convict.

That's a shortcoming in our legal system that I want to see corrected. With forensic methodologies getting better and better every year and the fallibility of the human mind being better understood and more clearly defined every year, especially with regards to suspect ID and memory failures, it should eventually happen. Sooner better than later.