It is just that we are creating things based on current experience, current knowledge, what if you asked someone from 120 years ago to “hypothesize” what this is, and to create an entire car from a piece of tail light. You would get an entirely different set of conclusions, maybe a horse drawn carrige or a kalediscope. (I realize I am stretching with this analogy, but creating something with a limited frame of reference is what I am looking at here)
I just think it is disengenious to create entire skelletons from a single or partial skelleton without stating that this is only a best guess, based on current knowledge and beliefs, and that it is subject to change based on future discoveries.
Too much is considered fact without a disclaimer of limited knowledge.
I think this is a big problem with biology, anthropology, archeology, astronomy … and anything where time beyond say 2500 years is involved. Too much guesswork, vs. facts.
I just want honesty and Science is built on a Jenga like tower of knowledge, one piece of data can bring the whole tower down.
My favorite series from like 30 years ago is “The Day the Universe Changed” it said that you see what your knowledge tell you that you see, and that knowledge will and perspective change when a big enough piece of knowledge is replaced by new theories and data.
I read the rebuttal, and I just want to make sure the theory is truly “bad science” and not rebutted because the Science of today says “This can’t be true because this data doesn’t fit our current accepted views…”
I don’t think anyone here is doing that, it just was a perception that I picked up from the responses.