Algebra, for example, is based on eight unprovable axioms which are accepted on the basis of faith. Within an imagined world where these axioms are true then algebraic math is also "true". That is because every equation can be logically proved by working back to the axioms.
Yes but this is the kind of faith that is fundamental to reasoning and logic. Such as the faith that "I exist" or that "the observable world exists". These things are assumptions which are necessary to peform basic logic itself. Anyone who reasons must have this faith and people use it in everyday life, whether to help them find their car keys or to figure out what happened to the TV reception. This is necessary faith. The faith in intelligent design is different as it is not a necessary to perform logic.
I reject evolution as science because, of all the brilliant people who I have had the privilege to debate, none have been able to provide a list of axioms agreed upon for this theory, let alone a logical proof that connects the assertions to these axioms. With the millions of hours devoted to this theory I find it inexcusable that none of the "experts" have taken the time to lay the foundation.
Scientific theories are explainations, not mathematical descriptions. They don't, and can't, have "logical proofs" so you are attacking a strawman.
I see you don't know any more about mathematics than you do about science. In the first place, elementary algebra doesn't rely on only eight axioms as you can see here.
In the second, and more fundamentally, these rules are accepted as a matter, not of faith, but of *choice*. Other algebras make different choices.
But don't let not knowing even these simple things stop you from posting.
>>I reject evolution as science because, of all the brilliant people who I have had the privilege to debate, none have been able to provide a list of axioms agreed upon for this theory, let alone a logical proof that connects the assertions to these axioms. With the millions of hours devoted to this theory I find it inexcusable that none of the "experts" have taken the time to lay the foundation.<<
You said that very well!
Evolution is a phenomena that the fossil record tends to show. Natural selection, mutation, speciation et. al., are all theories of how that phenomena happens.
The secret sauce of TOE arguments are:
The definition of a species is different for the fossil record and current animals. It is a big jump.
The species of animals developed by the fossil record may also have merges instead of just branches. Mergers would be extremely hard to explain at this point in time, after so much effort has been devoted to extinction as a mechanism for NS.
The big points are:
We have current examples of fertile species crossing. Wolphin (a dolphin, pseudoorca FERTILE cross, a daughter 3/4 dolphin 1/4 pseudoorca), some grass species that interbred and other species crosses that probably should be looked at again.
Evolutionists are not looking in a see no evil fashion.
That's the problem, and you hit it in a nutshell.
DK