Or perhaps I graduated to atheism but didn't get around to changing the icon.
I realize that English is likely your second language but how can what I wrote, , possibly in any way mean it falsifies the claim that the Literal Genesis account did NOT occur?
No...no...no You are the one who claims that evidence from a laboratory cannot be used to support a claim or theory. You said it can only be used to falsify a claim or theory. I was just trying to get an understanding of how you would use evidence in science.
Again...Can You Read!!??
I said:
How can that be understood as me claiming that .."ERV evidence firmly falsifies the claim that a common ancestor existed"?
The two sentences are direct opposites of each other.
BTW: Do you believe that eyewitness testimony and visions from angels are evidence or not?
Wasn't that annoying? Isn't it infuriating when you talk to someone and he or she misrepresents your position on every point?
Of course it is... so
now you know what it's like to talk to yourself.
Pay attention to what people say, and your posts will make more sense and be less annoying.
You have asked again whether eyewitness testimony is evidence.
I will say it for the last time, so open your ears. Pour a little hydrogen peroxide in there and let it wash away all that wax buildup over the years.
Yes, eyewitness testimony is reliable testimony. It is far better than forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is often (though not always) direct evidence whereas forensic evidence is invariably circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence always relies on an inference to be relevant. That evidence is only as valid as the inference that ties it to the situation. Since the truth value of the inference is unknown, circumstantial evidence can only
properly be used to exonerate someone.
Let's take an example of circumstantial eyewitness testimony. A woman was murdered last week. When neighbors were questioned, one of the neighbors say that she saw John leaving the house at 2:00 p.m.
Did the neighbor see John kill the woman? No, but she thinks (and might be wrong) that she saw John leave the house at the inferred time of the murder.
Does that prove that John killed the woman? No. If not one neighbor but 10,000 of them saw John leave the house, would that prove that John killed the woman? No. What if John's DNA were also found in the house. Would that prove John killed the woman? No. What if fingerprints were found on the toilet handle in the house where the woman died and experts said those partially-smeared prints nevertheless matched John's at 9 points of coincidence. Would that prove that John killed the woman? No.
So what's the procedure for demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that John was the murderer? First, we must assemble a list of suspects. Who had the motive to kill the woman? Perhaps the neighbor whose cat was killed by the woman's dog, the son, who stands to gain a lot of money from the life insurance, and etc. Let's imagine that we assemble a list of four people and John is on that list (for whatever motive).
Then you need to eliminate people on that list. Who had an alibi? If the woman's son was out of the country at the time of the murder, that seems pretty solid to me. He can be eliminated.
Everyone must be eliminated except for John. Then we can say, with reasonable certainty, that John must have been the killer. If, however, we can say that John had no known motive, whereas the woman's son said that he was alone walking in the park (but no one saw him there) then reasonable doubt will enter our minds and all the forensic evidence in the world should not convince us that poor John was the killer.
Get it?
