LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Because some people do not understand how hard it is for fossils to get preserved at all, have no concept of things like 'geological unconformities' where gaps of millions of years between rock formations mean that 'transistionary' fossils may have been destroyed by natural processes, or that 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct already and we have a fossil record that captures only brief snapshots into it.
They view the theory of evolution as a threat to thier religious views, because their church father's felt the same, and passed down a twisted view of evolution and what it means to them.
There is no conflict between the natural theory of evolution and any Abrahamic text or religion, unless someone is a young earth creationist who wants to take the Biblical time scale literally.
No. The Bible can, in theory, work on the 'day-age theory,' I've studied the position, and it's not theologically crippling to Christianity.
The reason that evolution is bunk, is because the facts do not support it.
You say that the fossil record is too incomplete to show evidence one way or the other? Isn't that the same as saying that it's completely useless as proof at all? But then why did you bring it up? I didn't bring up the fossil record as proof that evolution is bunk (though it does fall against evolution rather than support it), and there's a reason for that.
Abiogenesis by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Irreducible complexity by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Either of those by itself would have any biologist acting in good faith reduce evolution to, at best, something that's off the table unless no other alternative is available.
But all of this is putting the cart before the horse; I have one simple question for you on the matter:
What is the evidentiary standard that needs to be met for evolution to be proven false? To put it another way, what would someone have to show you in order for you to say 'Ah, I guess it isn't real after all?'