All new science is guesswork based on old science. Sure, non-scientists who don’t understand the scientific method will start talking about “truth” and “proof” and make it sound just as dogmatic as religion, but those people are in err, not the science itself.

There is not yet credible demand for this theory to be accepted as proven fact, but if your reason for rejecting it is for the embracing of a less statistically likely alternative based on weaker supporting evidence, the burden of justification is on you due to your more extraordinary claim.

On top of this, accepting the less likely claim based on supporting evidence such as, “The Bible says so,” creates a paradox as to why you’d get enter yourself into a logical debate in the first place, as it holds no dominion over questions of faith, which by definition require acceptance of your belief’s validity as inherently being wholly unknown to you.

So whatchu got? Unless you’re ready to flat out say that you accept the religious-based alternative on a leap of faith with no empirical evidence based on personal preference, in which case you have no right to step into the scientific and logical debate ring, anyway, I’d refrain from calling anyone Captain High Horse, and this is especially true if your answer is neither religious nor scientific, as whimsical personal preference does not supporting evidence make.