ATTABOY, DAVE!!!!
the problem with "science" that got your mistrust is in what that
word is often attached to is not really science at all. let's do
some definitions here.
i like to define science as that to which the scientific method
can be applied. 2 very important items here are OBSERVABILITY and
REPEATABILITY. my point is if what you are postulating is not
OBSERVABLE or REPEATABLE, then you are not talking science, you
are talking PHILOSOPHY. much of the debate on origins must be
denied the scientific high ground because no one was around to
watch it happen, and no one has been able to repeat it since
then.
it is true, we can observe evidences of all manner of creatures
and humanoids that lived in times past. we can probably duplicate
possible conditions that led to their fossilization. that is a
far cry from proving or calling scientific any claims regarding
their age or their family tree; often these claims are based on
assumptions that, while they may be plausible, are by no means
provable by the scientific method.
joe reimers