If you're defending a position you've accepted not on the basis of its supporting evidence but for other reasons, such as believing that scientists are just following the herd instinct, or that they've given you reason not to trust them, or that they're just circling the wagons to protect their own gravy train, and so forth, then you'll be in an exceptionally weak position here. At EvC Forum the focus is on the supporting evidence.
Also, the neutrino problem was explained in 2001 - and the explanation had supporting evidence by 1998, although by my own memory the solution had been proposed before then.
Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here. I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim. You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues. "Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.