The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists, no matter what they say.
I could have written that comment. ;-)
What I would have added is that I get two types of responses. The most common response is to imply that I'm so backwards and ignorant that I'm proof of the missing link. The other approach to discussions is to bombard me with a gazillion, boring links (often from the same site) with the expectation that I should read and refute the thousands of pages of blather that is presented.
It always surprises me how fiercely frustrated evolutionists are when somebody doubts the dogma, but if they truly believed in evolution, why don't they relax: we that disagree should eventually disappear from the gene pool anyway. ;-)
I suspect that most evolutionists got their belief because they were ridiculed or intimidated by people who they respected as somehow intellectual. Later, when somebody comes along and pokes holes in the new religion that these evolutionary converts accepted via intimidation, they resort to the same technique of ridicule and forward the tougher cases either to the "intellectuals" or to All Those People Who Know Better (a gazillion web pages) as their second line of defense.
I can't speak for anyone else (and neither should you), but I learned science by carefully examining the evidence, and understanding how work progressed from point A to where we are today. It is my observation that the results speak for themselves, evolution best explains what we see in nature, which is EXACTLY what a scientific work is expected to do. Pretty simple really.