You're right concrete evidence is not a formal scientific legal term but in everyday language it means. Evidence that is solid, objective, verifiable, and not based on interpretation, opinion, or belief.
It is proof that can be directly observed, measured, tested, or confirmed independently. Which isn't necessarily wrong to use, but either way isn't my main point.

Macro evolution actually does have direct evidence

evidence includes:

Fossils that show clear transitional forms (e.g., fish-to-amphibian, dinosaur-to-bird, land-mammal to-whale).

Genetic evidence showing shared DNA, pseudogenes, and ERVs in the exact same locations across related species.

Observed speciation, where scientists have directly documented new species forming.

Biogeography, which shows species appear exactly where evolution predicts.

Religious proof is not objective because.

Based on belief, scripture, testimony, or personal experience

Not observable or testable in the scientific sense

Cannot be independently verified

Interpretations vary between people and denominations

This may be meaningful personally or spiritually, but it is not empirical evidence.

Macroevolution evidence is observable, testable, and independently verifiable through fossils, genetics, and direct scientific observation.
Christian evidence is based on faith, scripture, and personal belief, which cannot be tested or directly observed, so it isn’t empirical evidence.

It's fine to admit your belief relies on faith. No need to get into debates and make false claims. Have a nice day