why is there so much disagreement in origin subjects when they are claimed to be based on scientific methodology? Who is messing up here in making/rejecting conclusions where othewise science subjects never have such contentions.?
I suggest and conclude that this is because origin subjects are about invisible processes and events. it’s not intellectual failure of one side or the other in presenting or understanding positions.
In fact like religious ideas, or physics, or even atomic levels of biology, like germs etc etc EVERYTHING investigated is not clear to the human eye. germ theory was rejected well into the 19th century because they couldn’t see the germs. physics gain its prestige as more complicated because it was about invisible forces. So proving how these forces existed and worked was lauded as a brilliance above visible discoveries.
God, Christ, religion are all invisible, the bible says also its faith based on not seeing things,and so everyone cuts everyone slack about these conclusions. or rather do not dismiss the intellectual standing iof a person based on Religious conclusions.
Likewise origin subjects, like history ones, is a investigation into invisible things by using visable things. Sure it is. So why not cut everyone slack on this?
In fact since biology, while visible, is more complicated to figure out its workings, and so healing/fixing it all, and physics which is invisible, practically in its actual force mechanisms, can be more figured out THEN its demanding the origin biology must be the most complicated thing in the universe to figure out. Geology being second and the spiritual world excluded.
So origin research is a investigation of the invisible, its the most complicated, and the most demanding of a liberality in intellectual disagreement.