(I think it is a travesty that the reply chain can get only 6 levels deep before one can't reply anymore.)

Anyway...

"There are countless scientists who reject the THEORY of evolution, and/or contend with the scientific approach applied to how evolution has been determined both broadly and specifically."

First of all I don't think you know what the word "theory" means in scientific sense.

"Most scientists would agree the theory of evolution is a theory. A great theory, but a theory."

Yes, scientists do think the theory of evolution is a theory, in the same sense the theory of gravitation is a theory. Both are accepted as facts. Let me quote the Scientific American: "According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.'"

"Science by definition must be observable, measurable data. Although fossils are great, and carbon dating is fabulous, and we love ourselves a good trilobite, there is far too much information missing between each time period, each species, and each soil sample to conclude anything absolutely.

I disagree, there is plentiful evidence and information not missing between those gaps you think are "the missing information" we can be quite sure evolution is at play at any given change in earth's fauna and flora.

The fact that we can observe evolution not only via the fossil record, we can also view it in real time studying ring species, bacteria, fruit flies and other living things and also their DNA concretes this evidence into knowledge, that it is in fact evolution that has been in play the whole time since the beginnings of the first few micro organisms to the present day multitude of living things we see all around us.

"This is evolution, folks. Observable evolution."

I agree!

"What I am saying is, many scientists refute how many of these fossil records were established and notated, many more point out several holes in Darwin's philosophies, and more still contend with extrapolations drawn from information that is woefully lacking in the kind of detail ordinarily required to bolster a proper scientific investigation."

"Creation science" is not science and those who claim to be scientists but peddle this nonsense are not in fact scientists but pseudo-scientists, false scientists. They do not care about the scientific method, nor do they understand what the term "scientific theory" means.

"The current argument is not that evolutionists are wrong. It is that the theory of evolution cannot pass the stringent scientific markers that make it science. Meaning, it has to remain a theory until someone develops a time machine."

Yet history, archaeology and astronomy can be studied just as well, and they all "pass the stringent scientific markers"... What you said is humbug. We can observe the evidence and conclude a picture of what has happened without "being there physically", whether it is in criminal forensics or in scientific study.

"I like to think we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about how the world began, evolved, and was populated."

Yes, we can't claim to know everything, but we can accept evolution because it is pretty much the only theory explaining our entire biological history, that has stood its ground tested and uncontested since its inception.