Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:
1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?
2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?
3) How do you explain formation of cell?
4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.
5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.
6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?
7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?
Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.
1) First of all, the Cambrian Explosion is often thought to have occurred almost instantaneously, but we are still talking about several millions years... "But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years."
The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.
2) Fossilization is a rare occurrence requiring just the right set of conditions. Therefore "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. But even so, there are many transitional fossils, and the number is perpetually growing (while transitional gaps become smaller). Here are pretty good pages dealing with transitional species (aka “missing links”): http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
And one about the evolution of the whale (very interesting):http://tumblrpigeon.tumblr.com/post/...tion-of-whales
3-5) I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to competently address these questions (not sure anyone can?), but I am quite certain that science hasn't figured out how living cells came to be on Earth. Anyway, evolution only addresses the diversification of life on earth, not its genesis.
6) I wouldn't say there are experiments that "prove" evolution, but certainly some that strongly support evolution.
For instance, Belyaev's experiments with silver foxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
All of our modern dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. If we can make this much change from wolves so quickly, what can nature achieve when left to its own adaptive devices?
Then there is the fact that scientists have to come up with new antibiotics because bacteria evolve resistances to old ones.
Here is a pretty lengthy (and wordy) article about observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
7) I have a few examples, actually, that are best explained by evolution.
Here is a good one... the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve.
From the Evolution community page on facebook: “This nerve connects the brain with the larynx (voice box). Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve means there's damage to our voice/speech box. Hence, the obvious path for the nerve to travel is straight from the brain into the neck and into the larynx, right? If you were designing the animal from scratch and "intending" that mammals would arise someday, that makes all the sense in the world. In mammals, however, the nerve goes from the brain down past the heart and then to the larynx. This is because that's the way it was in earlier fish-like ancestors, in whom making a trip around the heart was indeed the closest route from the brain to the larynx. But as the neck evolved and lengthened in a mammalian-like morphology, the current structure could not be made to start from scratch and the nerve developed its current highly unnecessary circuitous route. And nowhere is it more prominent than in Giraffes, where the nerve had to travel just 2 inches but instead makes a long tour all the way down the neck, and back up.”
In my opinion, this is clear cut evidence supporting evolution (rather than design).
There are other examples of "bad design" in nature that are best explained by evolution. Take the bad, injury prone lower-backs of humans, for instance (that haven't yet caught up to our always walking upright). Or the existence of wisdom teeth. Or the human prostate gland, that tends to swell, squeeze the tubing, and become cancerous.
Here's another: Vestigial Organs and Structures
"Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles."
--(Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133)
"Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
Take, for instance, dolphins with leg buds. Like whales, their ancestors were land mammals. There are also blind cave-dwelling creatures with useless vestigial eyes.
Vestigial organs are best explained by common ancestors (evolution). Their existence really makes no sense otherwise.