> sciencegeek/lighter, how on earth can you say that the evidence for evolution[ism] is equal, let alone better than that of the tudors ! ?

Because it is. Why? Because one cannot rule out 100% the possibility that all those paintings and documents are part of a giant fraud by the English nobility to pretend that "Elizabeth II" was the head of state, or that she even existed.

Was she? Did she? I don't know. I wasn't there. A lot of people believe in Elizabeth II on the basis of old books and pictures, but maybe they're wrong.

One might do DNA testing on her alleged bones, but the DNA researchers would certainly not want to risk their jobs by coming up with an earth-shaking unorthodox result, now would they? Anyway, just because there may have been a woman called "Elizabeth II," what makes you so sure she was really the queen? Were you there?

As this thread has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for evolution comes from a convergence of advanced and proven sciences, practiced by scientists from every nation on earth who in the aggregate have no conceivable political or other agendas to commit a massive fraud. What's more, their basic principles and findings can be tested by any other scientist right now. We don't have to rely on their say-so alone, or on paintings (by court painters who had to follow orders), or on easily faked political documents that could be covering up the real truth.

Of course, if your argument boils down to all facts are just another kind of opinion, and all opinions are equally likely to be "true" (whatever that means), then there's no point to any discussion except to display one's supposed skill in one-upmanship.