OK guys you really made your points very well.
Thank you.
Still, I tend to agree with this blog author that either there is not much proofs for Darwin's theory as well.
It seems that Darwin's theory is the most logic but still the are some ''holes'' and unproven facts in this theory, isn't it?
Darwin's theory has been researched before and after his 'revolutionary' theory and the result of it is the theory of evolution, it is proved to be a fact, there are no holes in it, that is if you understand that it does not explain the 'origin of life' but the evolutionary processes. Creationists and apologists try to use it as a counter (they call it Darwinism, trying to make it look like a dogma) and they say it does not prove the origin of life, that it has holes. They are wrong from the start since the theory of evolution never mentions the origin of life. That is what creationists mostly do, as you can see a clear example in our retarded friend here, Badecker, who 'scientifically' proves the existence of God without being even able to define a God, to establish the characteristics, the identity of the God and why it must be it and not something else. In fact, he even fails to properly establish if there is need for a creator or not. Superficiality, in science, can be very easily spotted and rebutted, regardless the fact that some idiots still go on with the same ideas after a spot on, 100% clear scientific rebuttal.
The result of the science fiction theory of evolution, is the science fiction evolution.