Creationists do not make sense

[Tiberius]

Neither statement says anything close to "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it".

Neither statement says I would ignore the facts.

What you do is a common creationist tactic. Claim that all "facts of evolution" are merely interpretations and thus denying them isn't denying facts but merely opinion. By denying evolution, you are denying the facts, plain and simple. Evolutionary theory is seen by you (but not by all) as a contradiction to your holy book, and you'd prefer to stick with a simplistic (and wrong) explanation of the world rather than admit that the Bible is perhaps more "metaphorical" than you imagined.

Stating that the fossil record “quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

No, it's a prediction of evolutionary theory, not a presupposition. Darwin observed the differences of live animals on different islands of the Galapagos. He formed a theory about how animals evolved, and transitional forms in the fossil record was one of his predictions. Transitional forms in the fossil record is exactly what we found. If we hadn't, the theory would be wrong. The only way we found Tiktaalik (transitional form between fish and reptiles) is by looking back through the fossil record, and pinpointing the area where such a creature would have originated, and what layer of the geologic column it should be in. Lo and behold, on this prediction alone, they found the fossil. It's either a massive coincidence, or the theory works. Since the theory has made thousands of other predictions (all of which supported the theory or changed it to fit), mere coincidence doesn't explain it.

Further stating that the supposed transition is “to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

Again, see above.

Animals change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Humans change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Such changes can be defined as evolution and in this sense I accept that evolution occurs.

Yes, and the fact that many small changes ultimately add up to larger changes resulting in speciation is also a fact. It's been observed (type "observed instances of speciation" into Google to see for yourself...)

Stating that those changes we see demonstrate evolution in the sense of common descent or molecules to man evolution is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

Again, we observe it. We make predictions about it, and we look back at the fossil record and see that it fits the theory. It's just another natural process.

It seems to me like you and others here take all those things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition and you state them as fact. They are not fact. Sae has even suggested that they are fact like gravity.

We continuously observe that there is a force exerted by the earth on objects. That is a fact. That force is named gravity. Therefore, gravity is a fact. The things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition are not remotely like gravity.

We continuously observe that there is a force of natural selection at work on the Earth. That is a fact. Organisms mutate, they change, nature selects the ones best adapted to their environment to survive. That is evolution. It is a fact!

As for the dinosaur fossil, all it shows is that science changes with new evidence. However the existence of 68 million year old tissue doesn't contradict evolution, and the very date completely contradicts young earth creationism...