[AndrewC]

I accept the analysis but not the conclusion. It depends on your viewpoint (which is why we have the term viewpoint.)

I have known for some time that these discussions do not hinge on logic and evidence, but rather on worldview.

I agree with your last paragraph. For instance, recently a study on bird wing flapping was used as "evidence" for the ground-up evolution of birds. I considered it as just evidence for what birds do with their wings when they climb inclines. Another recent fossil find of a "4-winged" bird was used as "evidence" for the tree-down evolution of birds. You can't lose as the "evidence" points in both directions.

[anguish]

never-ending-thread-bookmark

[js1138]

I considered it as just evidence for what birds do with their wings when they climb inclines. Another recent fossil find of a "4-winged" bird was used as "evidence" for the tree-down evolution of birds. You can't lose as the "evidence" points in both directions.

Modern birds both climb and fly. What's your point, except that honest disputes occur about the most likely interpretation of incomplete evidence. Just as there are honest disputes among the world's religions as to the nature of god.