"Evidence" that only supports evolutionary theory if you accept the premise of Darwinism before examining the evidence. So that's exactly how it's done: "Wow, a new bone! We know before we even study it that it supports Darwinism, we just have to decide how!"
You can talk about the huge amount of evidence all you like, but if that evidence were examined in a cold, critical, unabashedly scientific light, it would no more support Darwinism than it would support the notion of the man in the moon. Evolutionary theory is a house of cards held up by circular reasoning.
MM (in TX)
"Evidence" that only supports evolutionary theory if you accept the premise of Darwinism before examining the evidence. So that's exactly how it's done: "Wow, a new bone! We know before we even study it that it supports Darwinism, we just have to decide how!"
You can talk about the huge amount of evidence all you like, but if that evidence were examined in a cold, critical, unabashedly scientific light, it would no more support Darwinism than it would support the notion of the man in the moon. Evolutionary theory is a house of cards held up by circular reasoning.
You left off the first part of my comment:
The evidence is non-existent to creationists because they absolutely refuse to see it--for religious reasons.
That is unfortunate, as your response just serves to document my point.