Science is not really about first year logic. The logic employed by science is speculative, and produces levels of confidence, not proof. The science employed by biologists studying evolution is identical to forensic science. It is forensic science.
So I am asking you for a simple answer to a simple question: which is more reliable, forensic evidence or human witnesses? I understand that it depends on the specifics, but which is generally more reliable, solid forensic evidence, or the testimony of someone you love?
Ahem. Science is about first year logic. Confidence in a conclusion is built through the type of evidence you use as support. The more shaky the evidence the less confidence in the conclusion. The more assumptions you have to make, the less confidence in the conclusion. Science is logic. You can't do proper science without first year logic and I'm both amazed and disgusted at your attempt to divorce the two and further attempt to differentiate them as though that were at all possible. Yes, you are seeking proof. That is the point of the method. Forensic science is still bound to the rules of logic. The more leaps of faith you make, the more questionable your conclusions. You can't charge a guy with murder and walk them into a courtroom and convict them on a hunch or maybe I should say "inference". Don't know how many ways one needs to say it before it sinks in. You seem to be of the misunderstanding that because you can reason that something is possible, that possibility is factual. I'm attempting to disabuse you of that notion - which seems a losing game as ya'll for all your intellectual superiority, don't seem to have the brains to get it.
So I am asking you for a simple answer to a simple question: which is more reliable, forensic evidence or human witnesses? I understand that it depends on the specifics, but which is generally more reliable, solid forensic evidence, or the testimony of someone you love?
Again, your example was wanting and overstated in comparison to the example of what vade did earlier which I took immediate issue with. He didn't witness an exploded planet, further, he has no evidence of a missing planet. He also has no evidence that a planet ever exploded. The only thing he has evidence of is that there are rings on some of the planets and there are asteroids. Bully for him. Theory is not fact just because you state the theory. If you can't authoritatively back up your postulations with proper premises and proofs, your conclusion is worth zip, zilch, nichts, nada. That is why you want to divorce science and logic. Logic flatly betrays the leaps you make as untrustworthy and vacant. How utterly disingenuous. I really feel for you guys. But I'm also finished with this. As I noted before, people wouldn't buy laundry soap on the kind of evidence you offer, yet you expect them to buy an origins of the universe explanation on that crap. Again, stop and think, who are you kidding. Seriously. Nobody. That's why evolution is in as much trouble right now as abortion and higher taxes. People have had enough of being sold a bill of goods. Might want to work up an epitaph for all that governmental grant money propping you dipsticks up.