You're off topic and you're violating the rule against attacking the person, both.
The topic is about how creationists can believe such nonsense in the face of all of the evidence and contrary to any logic. I have not attacked you as a person; I'm saying that you hold idiotic beliefs because your methodology is flawed.
So let's try again: If, in the course of human events, you could ever be the slightest teeny bit wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibilities are there in your methodology for correcting errors?
Funny you don't seem to realize that all you are doing is speculating, theorizing, fantasizing, and treating it as if it were real.
You're misusing the word "theorizing". Theorizing involves testing so it shouldn't be associated with speculating or fantisizing. Theorizing is not the same as treating something as if it was real but it does explain what is real.
You can speculate or fantasize about things that can not be tested, such as God.
You're still misunderstanding what a theory is. Evolution is a fact - and no creationist has ever been able to point out what prevents microevolution from adding up to macroevolution. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how that fact works. It happens to be the only explanation of how that fact works because creationists admit that their God can not be explained.
... fantasizing and calling it theory...
As I mentioned, a theory is tested (and passes the test) before it is called a theory.
WTF is wrong with creationists is that they don't understand the basic concepts and terminology of science.
What YOU don't understand is that the ToE hasn't been "tested,"....
That's nonsense, of course. For one example, the theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated before we knew anything about DNA. The subsequent discovery and study of DNA has provided the mechanism by which mutation and the resulting natural selection works. On the other hand, the study of DNA has provided NO support for the creationist tripe about a magical "super genome".
Every discovery of new facts is a test of the theory. If creationists are so confident in their hypothesis, why aren't they looking for factual support?
Yes, indeed, projection, although a very primitive psychological concept that appeals to the sophomoric pedantic mind, does describe well enough what the evolutionists do as they accuse creationists of their own attitudes.
I've asked you more than once: On the off-chance you you might conceivably be wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibility is there for correction in your methodology?
If you were looking in a mirror, how would you know?