Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, and they're not demoted, they're clearly not well-established.

Something could be well-established, and based on solid evidence, and still be shown to be wrong at the end (through new evidence and such) ...

Now I have to teach you logic as well?

In what way can something be well-established, and based on solid evidence, but be wrong? No, its not rhetorical. I'm asking to make sure we're using these terms the same way. Aka, for clarification.