Miller admitted that evolution is not a fact. Where is the fossil record to support the speculation about the existence of 'transitional forms'? The belief in 'transitional forms' is not science; it's nothing more than speculation.
Until evolutionists can provide a credible fossil record supporting the actual existence of 'transitional forms'; they can hardly claim that a belief in evolution does not require a considerable amount of 'faith' in the unknown.
How many times have you asked that question and completely ignored the answers you were given?
" Miller admitted that evolution is not a fact."
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory is how the fact of evolution occurred.
"Where is the fossil record to support the speculation about the existence of 'transitional forms'?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
" Until evolutionists can provide a credible fossil record supporting the actual existence of 'transitional forms'..."
Done.
Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. Pakicetus is a transitional form. Palaeomastodon is a transitional form. Covering your eyes and ears and pretending they aren't isn't going to make them go away.
So what? Neither is gravity. (It's a "fact" that object X is observed to accelerate at delta V in circumstances such and so, but "gravity" is a generalization.)
"Facts" in science are well confirmed and generally accepted observations. They don't have any significance, in and of themselves, except in their relation to some generalization about them (such as a "theory" or a "law"). Even geocentricism is not a "fact" strictly speaking, but "only" a theory. IOW we observe the facts regarding the polar coordinates of the planets, and how those change over time, and these facts are explained by theories about the physical structure of the solar system and laws governing it's behavior.