True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

Which is it - are they 'so sure' or do they leave room for tentativity? It is conclusive. Even though it's not actually true? For a start f is proportional to the product of mass and acceleration - and it is only if relativity doesn't exist. Otherwise the complexities of velocity and acceleration on mass have to be taken into account as well as issues of time and length.That which is taught as fact is that life on earth has changed over time. This is as absolute and conclusive as F=ma.The theory that explains this fact is taught, factually, as 'what scientists believe' along with why they believe it - or the like. This too, is indisputable. There's no reason to suppose we should. There's no reason to suppose we should find fossils at all. Genetics - Darwin had no idea about it but knew for his theory to hold there must be some kind of unit of inheritance.
Genetic dating and radiometric dating of fossils, as predicted, largely concur with one another.There's two. The genetics as above, the dating of fossils, the geographic distribution of fossils, observations of biological life with small generational lives, mathematics and computer modelling and so on. All point towards the same direction.I give more details in my open thread Confidence in evolutionary science

The theory of evolution states that populations change as a result of allele frequency changes, this can be adaptive as a result of selective forces sometimes collectively called 'natural selection'.The theory explains the fact. The fact is that populations change over time.Fossil evidence is used to reconstruct history. Science is used, including the theory of evolution, to help reconstruct that history. Natural history is NOT the theory of evolution. Theories are explanations. Histories are different things. Reconstructing historical events from pre-history is fraught with difficulty. But we can still use the theory of evolution to predict that life on earth is related by common ancestry and each piece of evidence we have found so far is consistent with this prediction being correct.There is a theory of common descent, which explains exceptionally well the patterns in the fossils, biogeography and so on - allowing for predictions on what will be found where. The specific details are historical facts which are often, for obvious reasons, less certain. Which is why scientists don't draw strong conclusions from things. They may develop hypotheses.

I remain unruffled. It is, after all, a central part of my philosophy and an integral part of science. There'd be no profession if we claimed we know everything! Do you have his email address - perhaps you can invite him here? I've presented some of what has been shown in practice, you are at liberty to engage with them. You seem more interested in dismissing the debate on the rather unscientific grounds of 'feather ruffling' and calling us fanatics. Assumptions are a vital part of scientific enquiry. One makes assumptions, then uses the assumptions to generate a theory that anticipates the data, collects the data, then examines the data and sees if the theory is consistent with what is seen. There are no fatal consequences in play for having a theory falsified - or even proposing falsifiable theories. This is not a scientific position. See the title, and you very thesis in this thread. Enjoy your snow trip.