Well, at least this much of your post is correct and provable. NOT the same for evolution. Evolutionist themselves are constantly having to change their theories because someone else comes up with another theory that makes the previous one look stupid! Don't get me wrong stu...I'm not bashing you in particular for what you believe. It just helps me a little to try to understand WHY evolutionist in general will pound the table today to say this or that is right or can be proven only to get shot down, or at least seriously wounded, tomorrow.
It is exactly the same for evolution. Mathematicians do the same, they change their theories, it doesn't make math wrong. Same goes for evolution. So why are you trying to pound the table. Is it for creationism?
Here is your argument via an anology: In football, they used to have tie games. Then they implemented a new rule, called overtime. Before tie games were eliminated by some new idea, tie games were not wrong. So the rules of football evolve. What does that have to do with the truth of life? To you science is just a game where they change the rules? The old rules weren't wrong...the new rules are just more right? Such foolishness... Sad, terribly sad what science worshipers have devolved into...
As usual, you don't show how the analogy fails, you just spew crap... You really can't make reasonable counter arguments, can you? Laughable, truly laughable that someone who promotes reason can't even implement it to defend their own spew...
no new rulz just new evidence. when god crawlz out from under that overturned rock.. science will be there to first to document it till then you are just p[issing on humanity with your foolishness and obvious disdain for human intellect
Of course there are new rules, it happens all the time. The very rules of evidence change constantly, which is a reason not to have certainty over the results when the rules have always changed over time... I know this will hurt your brain, and if you took it to heart it would shake your world view up... ...but lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, and lack of evidence of cause is not evidence of causelessness.... So take cause and causelessness out of the equation and what do you get when you observe life? The truth which is knowable, i.e. living beings have an instinct to survive and will do what they can to adapt to the environment and internal genetic changes to survive. That was Darwin's real vision, that life is dynamic, that the nature of living beings is to survive and adapt. Darwin never ever drew the conclusions that are attributed to him, because Darwin was a real scientists understanding where factual observations begin and end, and where fanciful theories have their place... Darwin proposed a model. Is it the best model? Who can say? Is it the best model? Again, who can say? Because scientists think it is the best and true model does that make it the best and true model? No, it does not. It is just what is fashionable amongst scientists, who generally are smart enough (or at least they were) to keep their science out of the realm of origin of life....
In math's case, when the correct theory is discovered/applied the problem in question can then be solved/proven. Evolutionist have not honestly proven anything. A good example is how math is used to determine the age of the earth. Despite what people have been led to believe, there are no dating methods which give an absolute date for the formation of the earth. All dating methods are based on non-provable assumptions about some event in the past. Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened. To understand the validity of any date, you have to have an understanding of how all dating methods work. For example...suppose you were up at 6:00 a.m. and happened to see a friend who lives in a nearby town. You observe that he is walking along at 2 miles an hour and you know that he lives 16 miles away. You can easily use the formula at the top of the illustration to calculate that your friend left home 8 hours earlier. You have just performed a dating method of how long your friend has been on the road. However, something doesn't make sense. Why would your friend be up all night walking? Although you used the correct formula, your assumptions may not have been correct. Perhaps your friend stayed with someone in town and woke up just minutes before for a morning stroll. In this case, you have used the 'Wrong Initial Amount' in your calculation. Perhaps he took a shortcut which cut 12 miles of his walk. In this case there was "contamination" of the total amount. Perhaps since you last saw your friend, he has taken up marathon running and average 8 miles and hour (only having slowed down just before you saw him). In this case you have used the wrong 'Average Rate'. The point is, wrong assumptions lead to wrong answers. In all dating methods the initial amount is an assumption, the estimate of contamination is an assumption, and the overall rate is an assumption. The only things which can be known for sure are the present amount and the present rate. Unless you estimate the initial amount correctly, the average rate correctly, and the amount of "contamination" correctly, your answer will be wrong . And depending on your assumptions, it could be very, very wrong. To stay in context with this thread and my first post in this thread, all I am saying is this...evolutionist claim to be able to prove their theories. In all honesty they have not. rc