Why do people deny evolution?

On the painting there are 4 sheep and 2 cows in the meadow. Evidence forces to a conclusion. Whether the painting is beautiful is a matter of opinion. That conclusion is arrived at by expressing emotions with free wil, thus choosing the conclusion.

You mean study what some evolutionist idiot calls perception?

Facts are forced by evidence, resulting in a model. And if the model is not 1 to 1, then it is corrected. There are still 4 sheep and 2 cows on the painting. And any other answer is wrong.

You are obviously yourself retarded. You regard the existence of love as fact, and when love is fact, then what is beautiful is also fact, because beauty is a love of the way something looks.

This is not a matter of opinion.

why archeology? you "believe" the data that shows familial associations on mummies but refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of sames when it comes to clades of animals and plants.

and of course again mixing up micro evolution with macro evolution.

Mixing up? They are connected. micro being shorter term while macro being longer term changes over time. Why not actually take a biology class so you might have an idea of what you are even talking about?

Actually, we are talking about a colossal leap of logic.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie | Jun 17, 2002
...
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
...
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
...