Replies

It’s amazing. New discoveries knock down one theory after another but the replacement theory is always posited as rock-solid proven fact. Often in error never in doubt.

If that is what you think, perhaps you need to study some evolution. Fossils that are excavated provide data points. The arrangements and interrelationships of those data points and millions of other related data points are provided by theories.

For the point of this article, it is not one theory vs. the other: it is two different wrinkles within the same overall theory. Either wrinkle, and the overall theory itself, fail to support both a young earth and creation at 4004 BC or thereabouts.

My point is not to argue against evolution it's just to say that scientists often present their theories as they they saw it happen.

Paleontologists can each present completely divergent theories of how the Tyranosaurus behaved as if they had Rex family home videos. Neither of them will ever state "I think" or "We believe" its always Rex was this and Rex was that.

Evolution still needs to be studied as a theory because all you have a dots and not the complete picture. New dots change the picture and most of the folks I watch talk about evolution talk like they have the whole picture.

I don't dismiss evolution but I think people should choose their words more carefully and talk less in absolutes.