TheVeganBuddhist

doesn't matter if it was with a microscope. It has been observed, so your point is meaningless. Evidence isn't proof. That the universe is allegedly expanding isn't proof that the universe began a singularity. Did you really say that Evidence is not proof? So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . . Yes, evidence isn't proof. Proof requires a different standard. Proof is undeniable. I can prove that the sun exists. I can prove water extinguishes fire. Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue. Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story. Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true. But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well. It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether. It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory. In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable. If evidence is not proof I hope you are never called for jury duty I would hate for you to stand the floor and say "Yes, I know those are his prints on the gun, and the gun was found in his bag, I know that is him in the video, and I know DNA linked him to the location, and eye-witnesses confirmed it, but that does not prove he did it."

doesn't matter if it was with a microscope. It has been observed, so your point is meaningless. Evidence isn't proof. That the universe is allegedly expanding isn't proof that the universe began a singularity. Did you really say that Evidence is not proof? So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .