The with accepting witness testimony for some is that when they want to believe it, they do accept the witness testimony.
When they don’t, they won’t accept the witness testimony.
The other thing is, is that they have arbitrarily determined that something like *hard* evidence, physical evidence like fossils, is much more reliable than eyewitness testimony, not considering the fact that the physical evidence needs to be interpreted, which is a form of witness testimony of its own, from what I can see.
I've got to say I couldn't agree with you more, right there at the bold italics, dear sister in Christ. At bottom, that's what I see, too.
But the persons holding the view that physical evidence is alone sufficient for our understanding of the world would never admit that the only thing backing up their presupposition is substantially nothing more than a personal wish....
Thank you ever so much for your astute observations, dear sister in Christ!