No one is ever found innocent. If the evidence is insufficient they are found not guilty.
But you have entered the realm of judgement now, rather than proof. Science works exactly like the courts. Scientists, like jurors, must decide the facts, and facts are decided by judgement, not by pure logic. The jury of science has decided about 10,000 to one that the facts favor evolution.
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements. When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence. You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels. You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Or, briefly, even a weak theory beats no theory at all.
Irrelevant.
But you have entered the realm of judgement now, rather than proof. Science works exactly like the courts. Scientists, like jurors, must decide the facts, and facts are decided by judgement, not by pure logic. The jury of science has decided about 10,000 to one that the facts favor evolution.
So you think the realm of judgment is different than the courts? Doesn't one have to judge the proof? What good is proof without judgment? Without judgment, proof is merely data
If Science is like the courts, why do evolutionist demand an alternative theory when evidence against their theory is presented? That is not how the courts work.
Are you claiming one should render judgment in the absense of logic? If you don't judge the proof by means of logic - what means do you use? Ordeal? Is it even possible to render judgment without logic?
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements.
Interesting word-play. Is it possible to have judgment in the absense of truth? Truth is conformity to fact - are you saying science does not seek to conform to fact?
When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence
So what you are saying is science does not seek to conform to fact but it is impressed by longevity.
You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels.
...so stop questioning and close your mind?
You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Like you said - science is just like the courts therefore in the courts one most have better theory of who IS guilty before one can be found not guilty.
Yeah. Right.