Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.
Behavior does not reflect credibility. Credibility rests on objective facts.
They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults...
OK. Refute the fallacies with contradictory facts.
Insults? Is pointing out erroneous reasoning or factual error an insult, or a favor?
They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven,
Now who's lying?
We never claim to
prove anything. We just claim that our position is congruent with the observed and tested facts.
when fossils of intermediate species have never been found.
Where do you come up with this crazy stuff? How are you defining an 'intermediate species?"
All fossils are intermediate species. Every link is part of the chain.
They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.
What's the difference? Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution.
A hundred small changes is adaptation, and often invisible. A million is speciation/evolution and usually noticeable. How much change = evolution is an arbitrary call.
Do you claim organisms somehow stop adapting; stop microevolving at some point, to avoid speciating? How does this happen?
A hundred steps is a walk, a million is an expedition. I see no essential difference.
The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly,
No, we have whole libraries of observations and tested facts, with more pouring in daily. Knowledge is the whole justification of the theory. It is not faith or tradition based.
Please link to some of these sites that fail to explain things clearly. Are you sure you understand these sites?
but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves.
We have been doing so for years. Apparently you've missed, dismissed, ignored, or failed to understand it. Perhaps you haven't the background information to grasp the points, like trying to read without learning the alphabet.
Please note: You're comparing apples and oranges. A Creator is not an
explanation. It posits no mechanism. It
explains nothing. It's only an assertion of agency.
They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator
We don't care what we believe. We have no doctrine or agenda. We believe whatever the best evidence indicates. If good, empirical evidence of a god is found, we'd accept it.
Thus far there is no such evidence, so a creator is not yet an alternative.
Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth;
"...creation by God" is not an
explanation, nor does it claim to explain life -- just change
. If you believe there is an alternative explanation, please inform us.
You really should pay more attention to " evolutionist" posts, because you're clearly missing their points.
other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).
The theory doesn't preach. It explains observations and facts.
Life from space just moves the venue, and it doesn't explain
how it occurred, just its origins on Earth.
Nobody's denying that rapid genetic change occurs. Mutations happen all the time. Rapid change also occurs with rapid environmental change. Speciation occurs both rapidly and slowly.
It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.
But there's usually little attempt to reason with us. There's a lot of preaching and constructing straw men, as is seen here. There's a lot of nitpicking details, apparently expecting the entire edifice to collapse.
There is little indication that evolution and its supporting evidence is actually understood by its detractors, and no objective support for the "alternative" assertion of magical 'poofing'.