No, but at that time, the 60's, they did not have genetic knowledge to know what dinosaurs "looked" like.. and I was being taught what they looked like. Other than size, which was proven by bone structures, the rest was "speculation".. I didn't like it that the teachers didn't say "we don't know what they looked like, only how big or small they were".. or, "we don't know exactly what the Vikings said when they landed, but we like to think they said this".. LOL I was an odd kid..
As a 8 year old child, my understanding of "theory" was quite limited to meaning.. "they don't know but from what they do know this is the "best guess" and as a child my "literal" streak was much more in control than it is now.. I still have issues with being too "literal" but now I understand this fault of mine and can think around it when I need to.. or when someone kindly points out to me that I'm being too literal..
And I never take offense if someone says, "you're being too literal" because I know it's a truth about me.. I am often too literal..
I don't consider what is proven, such as atoms or cells, or earth's rotation around the sun, or platonic movement.. to be theory.. I consider that which is unproven to be theory.. again, my "literal" take on the word theory..
