(March 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Absolutely but note the word 'facts'. As long as a fact is in evidence either side can use the fact or physical evidence to make their case. What they can't do is make up some alternate theory based on the mere possibility such could occur minus any facts or evidence it did occur.
The only 'facts' in evidence here are that the universe exists and that the life exists. They comport as much with the 'theories' of eternal universe, circular universe, multiverse etc. as they do with yours. So, really, we don't need to provide any additional evidence when your own proves you wrong.
(March 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 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.
And the objection would be overruled - since in this case those alternate 'theories' comport with the evidence you provided.
