No Witnesses

quote:

---

"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.
  —ookuay

---

To me this also seems quite ridiculous as creationists exclude themselves from this same little "test" they want to impose on science. Witness accounts.For example, Christians get their "information" on "creation" from the first book or two of the Bible. Nobody knows who even wrote those books. These books were not written by Adam and Eve. So, what is written down in there is hearsay. Not eyewitness accounts.Hearsay is not accepted as evidence. Not in any court or anywhere else in civilised countries. It is only done in countries where they can kill you for not breathing in tone with the dictator or Mullah.Their 'argument' also means that we can't deduct that any snow in Antartica before the 1820's fell from the sky, due to the fact that nobody was there to witness it. They want to indicate that snow being poofed into existence in Antartica is on equal footing with the deduction that the snow fell from the sky. It isn't.In the end, verifiable, empirical evidence is a lot more reliable than eyewitness accounts. For example, just look at all those people who were convicted for crimes on eye-witness accounts; then later set free when empirical, verifiable evidence for their innocence was provided.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake

Hey, I'm not a lawyer. However, I used to watch Judge Judy every day! Therfore I know just about as much of your State law as much as you do! According to what you say the out of court statements from the victims (or victims witnesses)are admissible, as long as the absence from court was caused by the defendant. Am I right? That's fair.Then also, when arrested there's a speach about everything you say can be used as evidence? That's fair, too, because the defendant is supposed to have first-hand knowledge (but can lie about it, or not be guilty, etc. too).It still does not consider hearsay from anyone who is not a witness as evidence.Edited by Pressie, : SpellingEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.