See, by phrasing it that way, you make it sound like the assumption comes first and the explanations later. It's actually the other way around. Dogs and bears got classified in the same suborder because of physical similarities. If we look at the fossil record, we find old bones that are kinda doglike and kinda bearlike, but no full dogs or full bears; and we find younger bones that look more and more like bears and dogs, but we stop seeing those bear-dogs. Well, let's look at the genetic information--how about that, dogs are more like bears than they are like other carnivores. What could be the explanation for why dogs and bears look alike and are genetically similar and their separate fossil lines go back to a certain point until you find something that looks like both? Maybe that thing is a common ancestor!
You want to wave away that entire process by labeling the result an assumption. It's not. It might be wrong, but it's not just an assumption.
I ASSUME that a bear and a fox have a common Creator and that is why they have similarities.
This time I won't argue with you. That is an assumption. But of course, your assumption is not mutually exclusive with my resasoning.
he ONLY reason I have for wanting to withdraw from the converstian is because you believe that everything an evolutionist says about the past (even millions of years into the past) is gospel truth.
No I don't.
You can’t even admit that your opinion and the opinion of EVERY person causes them to be biased about the information in front of them.
Sure I can. The strength of science is its ability to help people overcome their biases.
“By assigning each group of organisms to a kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species, they can then be uniquely characterized. Their membership in a group tells us about the traits they share with other members of the group, or the traits that make them unique when compared to organisms in groups to which they do not belong.”
http://animals.about.com/od/scientificdisciplines/a/classifyinganim.htm
This is the way animals are classified. The bear and fox part ways when they start to part characteristics. Again the assumption is WHY they share these characteristics. You assume an evolutionary common ancestor. I assume a common creator.
What would someone assume if they found a platypus a million years from now?
You think that I am the only one with bias. It is ironic that your bias keeps you from seeing your bias. I have admitted that my interpretation of the evidence is based on my worldview (bias). When you can do the same when can continue to have an interesting discourse.