The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

No but any lawyer worth his salt would object to his adversary attempting to introduce an alternate theory weaved out of thin air or even on the basis that some alternate theory is feasible. They still have to ground it in evidence or facts produced in the hearing. Even in closing arguments they'll get an objection if they start making arguments apart from facts or evidence brought out in the case. That is why jurors are referred to as the triers of fact.

Except that in this case, we have expert testimony that these alternative theories aren't merely will o'whisps, woven "out of thin air." And faced with expert testimony on the one hand, and your lawyerly complaints that the testimony of the experts is "insubstantial," the expert testimony wins. Move on counselor, your attempt to cast doubt on the opinion of experts without presenting a single fact justifying your skepticism is noted.

An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise.