A belief doesn't necessarily die simply because it is incompatible with reason or observation. In fact, it is often the opposite. It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation. The belief is the axiom, the undeniable truth to which interpretations of observations must be made compatible with.
That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view
Well, you need to study your opponents. Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence. Even Darwin's theories, as primitive as they may have been, were quite reasonable attempts to explain meticulous real world observations.
Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life.
Maybe I have been the victim of only reading ideas from some black sheep of the creationist movement, but repeatedly I read things such as false interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics that are like neon signs flashing "absurdity".
Even without all the absurd or contorted particulars, I am asked to accept that, given the world as I can observe it, it is more likely that multiple complex species magically popped into existence like a mammoth David Copperfield special than that there was some sort of continuum from the formation of the solar system to earth's present state.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
Actually some posters on this thread have done a reasonable job of explaining the science of evolutionary theories. If you think the theories as described here go outside the realm of reality, I suggest you read a contemporary textbook on the matter. As far as brick walls, they result (in modern theories that are privy to them) in unsubstantiated explanations rather than contradictions. The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science. The process of fixed unfalsifiable conclusions followed by interpretations tailored to fit them is not.
Exactly, which is why getting you guys to think about it is like pulling teeth. Let me state evolution's vitamin deficiency in another way: If evolution is on such a sound foundation, why do defenders have convulsions at the thought of allowing criticism? If you fear criticism, you have something to hide. Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools. Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly. That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.
It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.
You reveal a paucity of knowledge regarding religion. Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious. Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator. It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason. I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence.
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
Seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are failing (miserably!) in providing reason and observation in support of their theory. They are insulting, indulging in rhetoric, and trying to discuss everything but the evidence for their theory. It is those opposed to evolution that are providing solid scientific facts to support their views. Since the facts are the same for everyone and available to all, one has to wonder how evolutionists can say their view is true when they cannot find facts to support it but their opponents can easily do so.