I'm going to chime in here and state that if evolution is true and beyond doubt then there should be in the fossil record intermediate species between the different groups that are present today but there are very, very, few examples of such fossils. Evidence of one species "evolving" into another is mute. There is a lot of speculation about how life in the form we now know came into being. If life did not appear in forms we observe what happened to the evidence of changes from one species to another? Just something to think about....

Lol...you haven't read a thing I've written did you?

You are illustrating (better than I could) how it works.


1.) I mention that all men have their presuppositions, their "axioms" with which they interpret any evidence.

2.) I post a quote from a high profile non-christian biologist confirming the bias.

3.) I'm challenged to "give evidence" for creation.

4.) I labor once again to explain that it's NOT the evidence that's in question, but the CONCLUSIONS drawn from the evidence that is.



And after all that...you beg me for evidence.

Do me a favor.

Go back and read what I've written on this thread...re read it if necessary.

Once you've done that...ask any clarifying questions you have if what I've written is unclear.

Other than that...you are illustrating my point beautifully.

True.

Everyone has their bias' and blind spots and no matter how much logic is brought to bear, they will persist in their beliefs.

The fact is...our most basic beliefs are axioms that (by definition) aren't provable...if they were, then they wouldn't be axioms.

Here is a revealing quote by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist). He's a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

He says:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’