I think that they simply theorize everything. If something comes that seems to contradict the theory, they further theorize to cover the gap. They make up alot of nonexistant things that supposedly fills in the gaps. For example, an evolutionary response to my articles question of where is the 2-5 cell creatures would be they are extinct. This would be a theoretical response. Theoretically they have to exist or evolution is wrong. So a new theory is required to support the old. They must assume that they existed and died off, and that is why we don't see them. They need no proof for this, because it is theoretical. It is a possible explanation to the posed problem. That is what they do with ALL discrepancies. Another example is the existance of comets. Supposedly comets have a life span of 10K years. If this is tue, there should not be any comets in existance if the earth is really 4.5 billion years old. So they theorized the existance of the Oort cloud. They have never seen the Oort cloud, it is a theoretical cloud that supposedly spits out comets. That explains why comets exist after 4.5 billion years.
Be the first person to like this.