The roll of the dice in Vegas aren't repeatable. But "dice theory" I'm sure is studied in that town and is a real science. I assure you that dice, and odds, exist.
Same with evolution. The theory describes it's actions, and like it's impossible to predict what will come up on the die, the fact that something will always come up with dice and evolution is a forgone conclusion.
Same old creationoid error -- claiming that if something isn't repeatable, it isn't science. By that goofy standard, astronomy isn't science, because we can't repeat supernovae, and we certainly can't repeat the big bang. Nor is geology science, because we can't re-create the history of the earth. I wish, just once, that we'd encounter a creationist who had the first clue what science is. But then ... if a creationist had a clue, he wouldn't be a creationist.
Dice (if tossed according to casino rules) do behave stochastically®.
"The roll of the dice in Vegas aren't repeatable. But "dice theory" I'm sure is studied in that town and is a real science. I assure you that dice, and odds, exist."
This is silly. Dice experiments certainly are repeatable. The fact that individual rolls don't proceed in a specific sequence is irrelevant to the fact that the theory of dice is quite repeatable.
However, if I said, "yesterday I rolled X, Y, and Z", how would you test that claim, specifically, except by historical records? What if there are multiple historical records and they conflict? If I tolled you I rolled the same number every time for 30 rolls in a row, would you believe me or would you say that I was playing with loaded dice?
When the evolutionist sees something that unrealistic, they just assume that since the dice have not been weighted when they played the game, the dice have never nor could ever be weighted. The creationists, on the other hand, know the dice-roller, and know that he has been known to load the dice on occasion.