Why do people deny evolution?

The dictionary definition is not the scientific theory. More word games from you. You are definitely a disingenuous a-hole.

Moral support....

Well, that is still 20%!!

20% of what number?

Then look at the total number of biologists there are to see just how unimpressive your little factoid is.

All of these scientissts are first and foremost , WORLDVIEW DRIVEN, not evidence and fact and experimentally driven.

Using numbers of supporters is a poll, polls are opinions only and the religiously driven folks obviously chose their religions over their training

You changed the definition you were given in order to criticize it. I notice you didn't address the specific point I raised in how you were disingenuous about the definition you were given. My conclusion about your argument seems to be correct. You are disingenuous in your arguments making you a disingenuous a-hole. When you make a large mistake and it is pointed out you just ignore it and pretend there has been no argument.

That doesn't make my calling you a disingenuous a-hole an ad hominem since I still haven't said you are wrong because you are a disingenuous a-hole. The fact that I point out your errors and you pretend they don't exist makes you a disingenuous a-hole.

Now about all those evidnces for macro evolution that you are STILL trying to pretend don't exist.......

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. [i]If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them[/i]...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.