Would the "evidence" that archaeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists etc present, stand up in a court

Question

of law?

If not, why do they present all these ridiculously detailed and intricate details as "fact" when they are basing all of these elaborate scenerios and stories on a tiny speck of bone and a fossilized piece of c**p (and a vivid imagination)?

I've seen these pinheads speak in gasping hyperventilating orgasmic detail about a family of cavemen who lived 3 million years ago. These pencil-neck geeks list for me 6 things they had eaten on the day they died, how many pets they had, how long the guy's p***s was, how many kids they had, how often they brush their teeth with sticks. These ancient hominids like to cover their food cache with their own p**p, in order to keep animals and others away from it, and this particular guy invented fire and cave painting. Oh, yea, they also danced around a bush every friday night as they have for many many generations. Of course It's all in the evidence ! See, look at this little piece of jaw bone. Fossils don't lie !

Answer 1

Well yes, it would stand up in court.  There are two standards in deciding facts:

1.  By a preponderance of the evidence in civil matters

2.  Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal matters

But notice that neither one of the standards is beyond any "possible" doubt.

It's possible that God placed fossils in the ground just to mess with our heads.  But is it reasonable to ignore all of the evidence?

And one more thing.  Do you accept that planes fly, that engines turn, that the phone works, that the average computer can store all accumulated knowledge prior to mid-20th century?  If so, do you understand how it all works, or do your trust that scientists, engineers, and technicians spend their lives in highly specialized disciplines to solve problems and provide answers that you and I never could?

Then why is so impossible to accept it about things you don't believe but have no better understanding of than how your television works.

Answer 2

Actually the standards of evidence in all science, including the ones you mentioned, are a lot stricter than the ones in law.  'Evidence' like eyewitness testimony that is used to convict in court is typically only barely acceptable in science, if acceptable at all.

Answer 3

They are not just basing evidence on fossilized bones. There are artifacts left behind by "cavemen" such as tools and cave wall paintings. Also, the way they have found fossilized skeletal remains, the positions they were in, and the artifacts found with them suggest possible lifestyles activities they partook in at those times.

Answer 4

Fossils lie a lot less often than a book of old legends from which you seem to be getting your "evidence".

That said, it doesn't always stand up in court. Watch "Inherit the Wind" some time, to learn about the Scopes case. Luckily for the world, The Dover Board of Education had it's butt kicked both in court and at the next election, so there is hope for the world.

Answer 5

The court or a jury may place as little or as much credence on expert testimony as they wish. It all boils down to the believability of the testimony being offered and whether it is being offered as fact or theory.