The evidence is non-existant to creationists because they absolutely refuse to see it--for religious reasons. Evolutionary scientists have no problem seeing the huge amount of evidence that is out there, with more coming each year.
And to paraphrase your second statement: What irks scientists is that dogma wants to become science without supporting evidence.
"Evidence" that only supports evolutionary theory if you accept the premise of Darwinism before examining the evidence. So that's exactly how it's done: "Wow, a new bone! We know before we even study it that it supports Darwinism, we just have to decide how!"
You can talk about the huge amount of evidence all you like, but if that evidence were examined in a cold, critical, unabashedly scientific light, it would no more support Darwinism than it would support the notion of the man in the moon. Evolutionary theory is a house of cards held up by circular reasoning.
MM (in TX)
“The evidence is nonexistent to creationists because they absolutely refuse to see it—for religious reasons. Evolutionary scientists have no problem seeing the huge amount of evidence that is out there, with more coming each year.”
To see what? It’s still a “theory” and will remain ever so. If this evidence you site were all that convincing it would be scientific fact which it most decidedly isn’t! So, while Darwinists want Christians to get off their high horses about an unprovable God. (Their words) Darwinists should get off their high horse about an unprovable theory.