Mike asks,
quote:
Aren't you first accepting evolution - THEN finding evidence and saying "it must be evolution...."/ Because creationist usually get told that they use the bible - THEN look at evidence.
The explanatory framework of evolution is based on a copious amount of evidence, as has been pointed out again and again. This is more than enough reason to try to assimilate new information into the theory instead of starting from scratch every time a bone gets dug up.
By way of analogy, consider this. The assumption that all fingerprints are different is based on literally millions of observations, and the assumption has led to many, many acknowledged successes in forensics and various investigations over the years. Of course, it's true that the observations that establish the validity of the Fingerprint Hypothesis comprise a vast but vanishing subset of all fingerprints that have ever or could ever exist. If you were a defense lawyer, would you propose to a jury that your client's fingerprints at a crime scene do not necessarily establish his presence there? After all, the Fingerprint Hypothesis is assumed to be true in every case even though only one case of identical fingerprints would falsify the hypothesis. Isn't that really what you're asking?
regards,
Esteban "Dabs" Hambre