1. No bones can be suggested as evidence of evolution, because of possible species we never knew about, having existed in the past as a result of the diversity of God's creation.
Why is this rule perfectly fair? Well, again - because all I want to do is find out whether evolution happened, how I could possibly have any other intentions is just a bizarre idea, as I have even made rules to which evolution should pass.
You ask the question "Why is this rule fair?". But you never answer it in a postitive way. You simply say that because you don't have other intentions there isn't any reason to think it isn't.
That's not very helpful is it. Since we are attempting to, among other things, find out what has transpired in the past you need to explain exactly why we shouldn't use any evidence left by those past occurances. I feel that is a fair question, don't you?
In the case of prophecy I'm prepared to defend any of the rules as they should be applied to any prophecy on any topic.
Which rules don't you like again? And why don't you like them?
™ Version 4.2
