quote:
First of all we have to go on knowable facts. This is hard for evolutionists because they are so used to accepting the assumptions from their evolutionary Professors, who trusted the assumtpions of their evolutionary Professors and so on.
See, you are suffering under a major misconception regarding how science works.
Science progresses through a process of replication of results and critical peer-review, not through simply taking past scientist's word for things.
Every single new experiment or finding is a test of previous conclusions.
Your description above is more like the unquestioned and unchallenged passing on of dogma that religions engage in, and let me assure you that this is not the case within science.
Science is very contentious and competitive; the way for a scientist to become very well-known is to make some dramatic finding that, after withstanding replication and critical peer review, shows how wrong his or her predecessors were.
Science progresses and carreers in science are made when previous paradigms are overturned.
That is the complete opposite of your claim.