Are evolutionists even more blind then the creationists they insult? (Evolution post A)

It seems that all too often evolutionists call creationists (especially literal creationists) ignorant. They use terms like blind, oblivious and others, to basically assert that creationists have no knowledge of science, and just have their teachings "shoved down their throats." But through my own interaction with evolutionists, it seems like they can be even worse than some creationists.

In encounters with staunch evolutionists, they seem to know as little about creationism as some creationists do about evolution. They claim that their "scientific" theory is the indisputable answer. Yet when faced with legitimate thought and questions, they often come up empty.

Evolutionists don't feel the need to defend their standpoint, because they believe science has proven it to be fact. Quite the contrary, many scientists, even those who's belief's are not that of Intelligent Design, or Creation, have either questioned, or even entirely dismissed the theory of Macro-Evolution.

One explanation I got from an evolutionist was that evolution is like a puzzle. Which we have the majority of pieces, but some are still missing. And therefore while we can't see the whole picture, we can still see what it probably is. The problem with this comparison, however, is that there are many, many pieces still missing from the evolution picture, so much so, that it cannot even begin to be confirmed.

Answers I get when asking difficult questions get responses like "we'll figure that out later." Since when has that been considered scientific thinking? If that's legitimate defense to a question with evolution cannot answer, then what stops us from defending any other point of view with that? If that is accepted as reasonable argument, then you could make a claim that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese, and we'll figure out the answer later.

I had a teacher who was so staunchly evolutionist, he was literally the most blind person I know. When faced with a question he knew he had no legitimate answer for, he just walked away. I would deeply crave an actual intelligent discussion with this teacher. Who, belief's aside, was quite a good teacher. But if he is going to make official stances on certain issues, especially controversial ones, in a classroom, he should both 1. Have at least some rational support to his ideas, and 2. Be able to have a discussion about it, that has an ending other than "we'll find answers later" or him walking away. He had the potential to create support for evolution, because he certainly has the intelligence, but chooses rather, to make his claim and follow it with blindness.

Evolutionists can't answer questions about the origin of life. Scientific LAW states "Life cannot arise from non-life" And if evolution, a theory which deals (to some degree at least) with the origins of life, cannot provide an answer that satisfies that theory, it is not science.

Ask an evolutionist why there are no transitional fossils in the rock strata, and see what answer you get. (By the way, the chances that there are fossils that are transitional that we have not found, is so slim as to be considered impossible, but I'll get to that in my next post.

For the end of this post, I would like to really ask that someone who supports evolution, would be willing to actually have an open discussion, and try to defend their point. I don't conclude my argument here, because as I continue in the next few posts discussing evolution and evolutionists, I hope to truly express and give evidence both A) against evolution, and B) (give evidence that) evolutionists are often times even more blind than creationists.