You aren't trying to argue some common sense point that the rest of us are being bullheaded about. You're trying to hold a rigorously tested theory to a ridiculous standard of proof that nothing can satisfy and simultaneously claiming other things do satisfy it.

Exactly. Arguing about whether or not Darwin's theory of evolution is correct is like arguing about whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, there's some chance that the astronauts lied, all our measurements are both incorrect and coinciding, our understanding of the solar system's origins is fatally flawed, etc. But right now, every test ever proposed has coincided with the theory's predictions, so we say we "know" the moon is not made of green cheese.

Now, tomorrow someone might some out with astounding new evidence supporting their Theory of Lunar Dairy Products. New tests would have to be done, and old theories would at that point lose validity, and require modification. It would become a worthy topic of discussion, because the old theories' predictive power would have been lowered or eliminated.

But until that day comes, who argues about whether the moon is made of green cheese?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com