values over math itself? so you are saying "it isn't in 1+1=2," but in "truth+assumptions=further assumptions" that truth exists. and yet, any scientist can tell you stars exist with a standard decay. they all act similar, as they are not living, but simple functions. again, i ask you, why would the evidence be there if the truth wasn;t there?
You must have been tired because that post made no sense.
The evidence is the REAL tangible stuff we have. All of that supports Creation. Evolution keeps getting adjusted to fit the evidence.
There is no evidence that gives a hard "age" of unobserved things. Only guesses based on theories and suppositions. Such as the belief that the speed of light is constant -- which more and more are doubting.
To use a better analogy, it's like 1+x=y.
We don't KNOW x, but scientists throw in a value to X based on assumptions, so in this case '1' and derive '2' for the value of y.
But x could have been .5 in the past, 1.5 in the past or whatever.
You must have been tired because that post made no sense.
The evidence is the REAL tangible stuff we have. All of that supports Creation. Evolution keeps getting adjusted to fit the evidence.
There is no evidence that gives a hard "age" of unobserved things. Only guesses based on theories and suppositions. Such as the belief that the speed of light is constant -- which more and more are doubting.
To use a better analogy, it's like 1+x=y.
We don't KNOW x, but scientists throw in a value to X based on assumptions, so in this case '1' and derive '2' for the value of y.
But x could have been .5 in the past, 1.5 in the past or whatever.