People who still deny evolution, are they real?

For me, science explains the way the physical universe works. More is always being learned; but with that comes the knowledge that there's even more to learn. It's an ongoing process.

Religion, or spirituality if you prefer, is about the inner universe of meaning, personal experience, awe, wonder, etc. It's about psychological/emotional reality for human beings, not literal, tangible reality. It's as much poetry & art as anything else, and it shouldn't be put in opposition to science. Only fundamentalists do that, which always results in their literalist view not standing up to science.

An example: science can explain the biochemical, neurological, physiological aspects of being in love. That tells us what's happening physically when we're in love. But it can tell us nothing about the experience of it, which will be generally similar but still very intimately personal for each individual. Is your love for your spouse, children, parents, etc., just something physical? I know some people might say so. I don't feel that's enough. I don't deny the physical aspect by any means, but it falls short of the whole experience for me, which is more than just the sum of its parts.

Science tells us how things work. Religion, in its best aspects, gives us ways to talk about what those things mean to us, why some are considered important, others not so much. Psychology, philosophy, the arts in general, are all part of that. Science is mechanics, often dazzling & wondrous to observe & contemplate, certainly capable of inspiring awe in us. But assigning/finding/making meaning, purpose, value? That's a function of the inner universe.

At least, that's how I've always seen it. And while it works very well for me, I won't insist that anyone else should or must subscribe to my worldview. That would be succumbing to blind, rigid dogma. It would also reveal a fatal insecurity within me, by insisting that my worldview must be the only valid one. Why should it be? It's valid for me, and that's enough for me.

"You've misused non-sequiter, as well."

Your tacit admission that you don't know what "non sequitur" means is noted. Also, there is no hyphen in it and you misspelled "sequitur" as well. All you had to do was look at the way I typed it, Special Ed.

"Third term that you've misused."

Non Sequitur Alert: Part IV

I'll explain it to you, simpleton. "Non sequitur", in the general sense (not the formal logic sense), is anything that doesn't logically follow from that which preceded it, which comes from its literal Latin meaning of "does not follow". Since I haven't misused any terms at all, your laughable assertions that I have are all non sequiturs, as they don't logically follow from anything I said.

As for "tacit", when you reply to an argument with something that's not an argument or otherwise logically valid (in your case, you've been replying with mere assertions), that amounts to a concession. Since you didn't explicitly concede by typing something like, "I concede", it's a tacit concession, by definition. And when you assert that someone has misused a term, yet they've used it correctly, that establishes that you don't know what the term means (which is hilarious). Since you didn't explicitly admit to not knowing what the terms mean, it's a tacit admission, by definition.

"In your third reposte."

That's not a sentence, simple fellow, nor is "reposte" a word, at least not in English.

"As I said, get a third grade education and get back to me."

Comical Irony Alert: Part II