You can allow that is a possibility to your friend. The wonderful thing about science is that you can follow the evidence, and you can design and construct experiments that prove or disprove a theory.
You can simply insist that both of those possibilities are likely, but if you were assigning PROBABILITIES, which would have a higher probability?
Fact is that this is one more evidentiary element.
I had a thought the other day that it should be a law of ethical conduct within the scientific community that if one was stating a theory, or postulating some sort of guess, that you should be required to say something along the lines of, “It is our belief, based on the best evidence we have that . . . “
This is how global warming became a fact. It was a lie repeated sufficiently that billions and billions of dollars and many careers have been wasted.
Science is in very bad shape at the moment. Stating something definitive about a theory or belief should be a career-ender.
“...follow the evidence, and you can design and construct experiments that prove or disprove a theory....”
Whistle blowers have pointed to “data selection” used by geologist in determining age. (False)
while I agree the article alone does not prove YE. It supports that view better.
Thanks