According to how the evolutionists find supposed truth about evolution requires them to constantly change the evidence and ideas. What is not realized are the problems and advantages to this for the evolutionist. Advantages are:
1) A evolutionist always gets to look right regardless of what the evidence may be: If a creationist was debating a evolutionist and the evolutionist used a certain kind of evidence to claim the creationist is wrong and is basically a liar. And tomorrow that same evidence the evolutionist used gets debunked and replaced, who was really wrong and a liar? The evolutionist answer will be, but that’s how science works. Really? A person can be wrong but yet be right? A person can use evidence or ideas to call someone else a liar but when proven wrong he is not a liar because that’s how science works?
2) The evolutionist gets to win every debate: How do you compete with someone who by their own rules is never wrong because that’s how science works?
But let’s look into the problems with this ever changing idea.
1) School: I graduated in 1980. Back at that time we were taught evolution and I believed it to a point. We were also taught about Piltdown man (a known fraud for more than 50 years), Java Man (who was an extinct ape not a man). Plus ideas that are no longer used. Since I was taught things that were fraud and debunked was I not deceived and lied to? Was not all my classmates as well? Or is this how science works so that makes it okay to lie to Children in school about this?
2) Court cases: A perfect example of how court cases should become null and void is the Scopes Trial. Piltdown Man and Java man were used to win that case. Plus some evolution ideas were used that are now considered debunked. Should the court cases won on evidence and ideas proven wrong still stand because “that is how science works”? Should science dictate to the court how they perceive things according to their will to fudge the truth where ever they please and call it science? That is exactly what it is when one group is allowed to change what they deem as truth.
Let me put it another way. Let’s say you (the reader) were accused of a crime. The witness against you changes his testimony everyday. When asked he says: My testimony is being improved everyday because I am correcting it as I tell the truth. Should that court allow that witness? Would it be fair to you if they did because he said his testimony was getting better and he was correcting the mistakes he made on the first few days? No? Well that’s how science works in our court rooms. They are never required to come up with any sustaining truth, and their supposed truth is allowed to change. And their frauds, debunks, etc… in which cases were decided upon are allowed to stay because quote: That is how science works.
Just to show how this also works in evolutionists always being right, below is a video that is an example of how evolutionists just change the truth according to what debate situation they are in. So watch the video and see how science works.
Do you think the guys know what they are doing when they do this? Of course. Would they admit it? Of course not. Why? Because that is how science works.