Not sure how quickly your thought breaks down, but my mileage varies considerably.
I studied fossil man, human osteology, and evolution as half of my grad school program for six years, and included those subjects on my Ph.D. exams.
Based on my studies then and since, I very much disagree with your conclusions. If you are trashing science because it is improving all the time, I don't have any sympathy for your position.
When science comes up with better answers than it previously had, it adapts and moves on.
What would you prefer, that science pretend to be inerrant and unchanging, such as many religions do? What would happen then when evidence comes along to suggest that the "inerrant and unchanging" is wrong? That is just what happened with flood geology, with the last major holdout in the scientific community capitulating on February 18, 1831. The sciences have provided little to no support for creationists' beliefs ever since. This has caused creationists to increasingly take a hostile, though generally unstudied, view of science.
Unfortunately, many religious practitioners, particularly those involved with creation "science," seem to think that they are qualified to judge science based solely on their religious beliefs. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You have to bring evidence!
[[Unfortunately, many religious practitioners, particularly those involved with creation “science,” seem to think that they are qualified to judge science based solely on their religious beliefs]
ID science doesn’t do so either and ot suggest htey do is an intellectually dishonest lie!
[[If you are trashing science because it is improving all the time,]
Trashing? No- Darwinism trashes itself- Improving? No- I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken, it isn’t improving- it’s unravelleing and those hwo try to hold it together are having to come up with even more presumptious assumptions that are unsupported by the facts- they come up with these ideas to try to circumvent known serious impossibilities and each succesive assumptions relies on more and more extreme chance happenings, and greater and greater assumptive probability impossiblities. This isn’t how science works either, always patchign the broken links together with weaker and weaker hypothesis, but apparently that doesn’t stop Macroevolutionists from inventing htem and foisting htem on our kids as ‘science’
however you keep projecting onto people, and throwing these red herrings out.
You: When science comes up with better answers than it previously had, it adapts and moves on.
Well that is the popular groupspeak, however that has not been born out historically except maybe for periods covering hundreds of years. As to evolution, essentially the same concepts/ideas keep getting re-packaged and re-formulated as new and better, when none are any closer.
You speak of science like it is a conscious entity of its own. Science comes from men.
You: Sorry, science doesn’t work that way. You have to bring evidence!
I have brought evidence, the evidence of the evolutionists. And that is what I want us all to look at on its own merits, the evidence of the evolutionists, one piece at a time.
For your information, you come across more as a crusader than a scientist