>Actually when it comes to discussions like these one can in
>my opinion work three different points.
>
>1. Direct evidence. This requires deep understanding of the
>subject and the ability to read and understand science papers
>and reports correctly.

See below. Burden of proof isn't on my shoulders.

>2. My scientists are better than your scientists. Pointing out
>flaws in the other ones scientists and their failed reasoning
>and/or their hidden agendas.

I don't understand what you're implying with this. Science will concede that Newton's laws are approximations, but you can't concede that evolution is as well?

>3. A whole different philosophy/background. Like introducing
>god into a scientific discussion. Then it becomes more about
>the scientific method and its faults vs some different view on
>the world.

The problem is more that some people won't admit that the scientific method contains faults. It is not the equivalent of a mathematical proof.

>Problem I see here is that you refuse to do 1. because you
> much like me) don't know enough to refute 1000+ advanced
>science papers. The second one you say is a authority argument
>and that leaves the third one. But the problem is you seem to
>refuse to apply it on anything else than evolution.

Why do I have to do your homework? I say I'm not certain, you say you are. That indicates the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Saying "I don't know" doesn't require a proof. Saying "I do know" does.

>This all shows how hard it is to discuss a subject like this
>because it can only be true or false. A discussion about for
>example "Are the US doing good in Iraq" can be filled with
>opinions like "Because of X I think they suck" or "Nah, if you
>look at Y I think it will turn out alright".
>
>So what should I say. What is it you don't trust about it? The
>evidence? The scientists? The scientific method/our view at
>world?

I view the theory of evolution as a partial explanation to one factor of the very broad question of "Why and how are we here?" Like I said in my first post - its a piece of a far larger puzzle, one riddled with complexities and uncertainties. As such, claiming there's one golden answer to the whole problem to me seems unintuitive and improbable.

We're adding to the theory of evolution regularly and still looking for evidence to prove any number of models for the origin of life - I'd say at this point its fair to say the jury isn't in yet on the matter.