Yeah, in retrospect, I shouldn't have posted that.
Now, though, as for math. We observe nuclear decay NOW, we know the equation for it's decay. Thats how we bombed Hiroshima and Nagisaki, from facts. Or are A-bombs a simple matter of mind over matter?
From what we know of decay, we use to age stars, we base it on size, colour, and other variables. We then observe stars fitting into the catagory we deemed "about to die" as they collapse, and it fits into our equations and our math. Thus by the brains God gave us, we have the ability to learn about our surroundings. Again, I ask you, why would God put evidence in the same context as we exist now of a non-existant past? To throw us off track? Or to put us on the right one?
As for the "Creation never changes it's story, so it must be true, because Evolution keeps changing it's story" bit...
I am not saying so, but keep this in mind when using that logic: A stopped clock is even right twice a day. Just because you stick to your story, it doesn't make your story any more or less valid than another.
You want real tangible evidence for evolution from Divine intervention, but do not offer anything more than the Word written down by Man after several generations of oral traditions? You gotta admit, that's asking a bit much of a community.
You're telling them they aren't valid simply because it doesn't fit with your understanding, and then your only support is the Book. You and I hold it with utmost importance, but you just asked them to provide more than someone's word in support of their evidence, but your only evidence to them IS someone's word. Hardly seems like an acceptable offering to me and to them.
BTW, evolutionary theory propses we all came from the same original humans, in a small tribe in asia. The Bible proposes we all came from the same original humans, in a small tribe, in an unknown place, without an explanation of where the other women came from.
The only real problem with evoluionary theory is the idea of abiogenisis, but that was derived from some scientists who simlpy wanted God out of the equation. That is unsupported, and that is where I stand my ground.
If you feel the idea that "life changes" is so unsupported, then please, never listen to a doctor if they tell you to use stronger medications for a bacterial infection. It is life's very nature to adapt and to change, this is a form and function God gave it, as it is precious and God wanted His Creation to survive.
Ah, you keep missing the point. We know the rate of nuclear decay NOW. We do not know the rate of nuclear decay 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago.
As for the stopped clock nonsense, it doesn't apply. The Creation model is right 24 hours per day, so the analogy doesn't work.
And we should stop this dicussion, because as I said we're not on the same ground. You do not see the Bible as 100% Divinely inspired. You keep saying it is the words of men, which it is not. While you dismiss the truth of God's Word and what HE SAYS ON THE MATTER, you are no different than those who dismiss the Bible altogether. You're almost worse, as you pick and choose which parts are true.
Finally, since you haven't been paying attention, I do not base my understanding of Creation only on the Bible -- but on the science which supports it. All the evidence we have fits the Biblical account. Every last piece. Belief in Creation is NOT, as you seem to think, disbelief in Science itself. On the contrary.