What we don't know about what we know

The argument between evolutionists and creationists continues and will for some time. Whenever I read the arguments of each side I am astounded and frustrated by how they always seem to be arguing past each other without even trying to understand what the other is saying.

As I see it, evolution is still an unproven theory. There is a lot of support for the theory in the fossil record but the same record also gives rise to questions evolution theory fails to address. Creationists pounce on this as disproving the theory. All it really does is fail to prove it and raise unanswered questions. Until those questions are answered, the theory is neither proved or disproved.

Creationists argue that the world and all that is in it was created at once (usually 8000-10,000 years ago). in spite of the fossil record and other evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Evolutionists claim this disporves creationism, Not so. Creation theory rpostulates an omnipotent creator. Such a creator could create anything he desired--including the fossil record and astronomical evidense of age. Why? To create a requirement of faith in the face of doubt.

Which side is right? I don't know yet, but as Donald Rumsfeld once said:

As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, We know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

One thing I know is that as human beings, we will always assume that what we know we know will not be disproved by what we know we don't know, which means we don't know we don't know everything about what we do know.

And if you know what I just said, you know what I'm talking about.