That the scientist says that he has observed hundreds of instances of speciation in the fossil record of the foraminifera is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact that is in the evidence, 1 species becomes 2, no conclusion needed. When the scientist says that the foraminifera fossils change gradually with time, that is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact of what the fossil evidence shows, slightly different fossils in adjacent layers of sediment. When the scientist says that the fossil evidence shows a massive die off at the time of the dinosaur extinction \ yucatan meteor event, he is not presenting you with a conclusion, but a statement of what the fossil record in fact shows, a decline in the numbers and types of foraminifera in the sedimentary layers from those times compared to lower (previous) and higher (later) layers. When The scientist then says that the amount of change in foraminifera fossils occurs at a greater rate immediately after this extinction event, with a higher rate of speciation at the same time, it is not a conclusion, but a statement of what in fact the fossil evidence shows.

These are facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the fossil evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.

Ah, yes, the old "different interpretation dodge - another way to avoid the issue rather than get uncomfortable confronting it, because those "other interpretations" are never revealed nor is the way they explain the evidence ever discussed.

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on there being a single objective reality. The alternative is an interpretation based on no single objective reality, but one for everyone, just subjective reality, where we all can just make up our mind/s -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? (what would you teach?)

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly representing that reality. The alternative interpretation is to suppose that evidence is false, and full of lies -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy, and a lie is as good as the truth -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on all invalidated concepts being false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other regardless of the evidence -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

If you don't interpret the evidence as truth what are you left with?

There is no way I believe we randomly came from bacteria, though, or that the creation needed to happen that way. Believing otherwise is not a comfort zone thing for me. And I do believe the earth has been here for who knows how long. It does not change my belief in the LITERAL creation, though. Not sure how old young earth creationists think the earth is??? (I've heard of them before but can't remember). I don't know if dinosaurs co-existed with man at any one time but they were obviously here and serve a purpose for us now! Before the flood the earth would mist from what I understand and the first rain as we know it happened with the flood. Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. The Bible itself mentions that men were giants at one time. They lived for near millenia at first. (Methusela was over 900 years old).