[Gargantua]

"Why would it not be proof? If we were talking in terms of a court of law, such proof is considered just as good as if somebody actually saw you breaking the window."

Really?

What about the thousands of other people out there wearing exactly the same sneaker as me? What is it that makes it impossible for one of them to have broken that window?

Both your rushing to judgement, and your inability to consider alternate possibilities, are patently obvious, and are without a doubt a large part of how you shape your flawed opinions.

Thank you for clarifying for us your limitations.

[Dimensio]

What about the thousands of other people out there wearing exactly the same sneaker as me? What is it that makes it impossible for one of them to have broken that window?

The more you drag this out, the less analagous it is to the evidence for evolution. You're only hurting your case here.

[Modernman]

What about the thousands of other people out there wearing exactly the same sneaker as me?

In your original post, you said that the sneaker-prints "matched" your sneakers. To me, that means more than simply the same sneakers- it means forensic evidence can match the print to your shoe. Shoe-prints can be as distinctive as finger-prints.

The greater point stands up, though: circumstantial evidence is no better or worse than direct evidence.

Both your rushing to judgement, and your inability to consider alternate possibilities, are patently obvious, and are without a doubt a large part of how you shape your flawed opinions.

Your moving of the goalposts is typical of creationist arguments.