Moniker Posted:

I don’t think anyone has said that, ever. What has been said is that the preponderance of evidence (genetic, fossil, geological, etc.) supports the theory, and it is exceedingly unlikely that it could ever be disproven.

Exceedingly unlikely <> impossible.

I think it’s quite likely that in another, say, thousand years, people will be talking about “That Darwin, whose theories were sound given the technology of the time, but now of course we realize he was wrong, because 50 years ago we discovered <xxxx> which now shows the flaw in his argument.”

The argument I am making here is that a preponderance of evidence is not proof. Take for example the preponderance of evidence in ancient times that the sun, moon, and stars rotate around the earth. How could they NOT believe that? Because their tools were limited. I don’t believe we’re discovered everything yet, nor that our tools are as good as they are ever going to be.