Proof beyond reasonable doubt and scientific proof.?

Question

When theists talk about "macroevolution" they will say that it has never been observed, which is true. We have never seen family to family evolution in action except mostly in the interpretation of the fossil record.

But in criminal trials we normally do not see the defendant committing the crime. So why do we use a lower standard for something with way bigger consequences? People can be killed and imprisoned for life for something that we never actually saw them do, we of course use evidence that was left behind that shows that the person or event happened.

So why do we use the "I never saw it standard" when it comes to science if the overwhelming evidence shows that something happened even when we didn't see it for ourselves? Why do we not use the "I need to see it" for criminal trials?

Another example is continental drift. If before we could measure continental drift would we be right in saying that it is real based on the ample climatological and paleontological evidence?

Answer 1

We have never seen mountains formed but geologists can track historically when certain mountains were formed. They can tell you how they were formed and how old they are. There are new mountains forming in the world today. It will be millions of years before we could call them mountains though.

Answer 2

Actually,Linus, you need to think of polyploidy in plants and insects to know that " macro evolution " has been observed. Go here for more info on that.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 3

Its because there is so much data and millions of years of events and evidence that anyone can find some example to fit thier claim and their theory.