Why does he have to have been 'there', as you put it? There is nothing in the scientific method that says your observations of the effects of an event or phenomena have to be contemporaneous with it.
For instance when we observe bodies in distance space we are seeing things that happened millions of years ago. That doesn't mean they're beyond the bounds of science, does it?
In an earlier reply to this individual, I was merely clarifying what a FACT means in the scientific world. Evolution is NOT a fact by definition used by people who do legitimate work in science. Redefining what a "fact" is, still does not make evolution a "fact".
I remind you too of what a FACT is:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
I'm in a kind mood today, so at best I see evolution as an unproven hypothesis.