Oh not another anti-science idiot who doesn't understand how science works.
First a scientific theory is made on the bases of all the current evidence.
Then new evidence comes to light that either indicates that theory to be less probable or disproves that theory.
So then a new better theory is made on the bases of that new evidence in addition to all the old evidence.
That is just how good science works; attempts are made to adapt the theories to all the most up-to-date evidence; not adapt the evidence to the current theories. So good science evolves by adapting to new evidence, just like it should do. It is never a failure of science to disprove a scientific theory; it is a triumph of science to disprove a scientific theory! -because doing that generally points the way to a better one.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue IME a. more so than the average human, but still not perfectly, because b. IME less so than the average human, but still not never; but c. none of those have anything to do with Hindsey.
If it has nothing to do with RJHinds, then what is your point with your posting?