Evolution is a fact

Really, everything they tried has confirmed evolution? What is "everything," and who is "they?" Surely you don't mean creationist scientists. Homologous genes are poor evidence of common ancestry. It has been demonstrated that homologous structures are in many cases not derived from homologous genes (http://creation.com...). Homology in general is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor, so in both cases, homology is a weak proof. The fossil record confirms genetic homology? How so? You mention fossils and radiometric dating. I will address fossils first and then radiometric dating. Fossils are poor evidence for evolution because stasis is revealed for many body plans. But you seem to be under the erroneous impression that the geologic column exists. It does not (http://creation.com...). Regardless, the precession of fossils, from the Cambrian and upwards, is easily demonstrated to be a good evidence for the Flood, even more so than for the "tree of evolution." Besides this, many evolutionists have rejected the idea of the tree of life, so your argument is moot. "Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change (Graham, Lawton. "Why Darwin was Wrong About the Tree of Life" New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692. 21 January 2009). You say "All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossile that didn't belong where the theory says it should go." There have been many fossils found which do not fit into the "theory," and many fossils which don't "belong where the theory says it should go." Sorry you are unaware of these; it's not something you're likely to here in a secular biology class. But many times when a fossil is found to not match preconceived ideas of where it "should have been," they will simply change the time-period when the organism existed, rendering this theoretical construct untenable (http://creation.com...). There are many "out of sequence fossils" to cite, but here are just a few which should not have existed alongside dinosaurs: ducks (Cretaceous Duck Ruffles Feathers, BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk, 20 January 2005.), squirrels (Mesozoic Squirrel, Nature 444:889"893, 2006.), platypus (Swimming with Dinos, www.museumvictoria.com.au, 24 January 2008.) beaver-like creatures (Early Aquatic Mammal, Science 311 (5764): 1068, 24 February 2006.) and badger-like creatures (Dinosaur-eating mammal discovered in China, www. nhm.ac.uk,14 January 2005.). You can read more about the problems with the fossil record here (http://creation.com...). Radiometric dating relies on three assumptions: known starting conditions, no contamination and steady decay rate. To assume known starting conditions is wishful thinking of a most delusional caliber. Too many factors are unknown. To assume no contamination, or even to assume to know how much contamination has taken place is just as ridiculous. The Flood, by the way, would have caused massive amounts of contamination in rocks around the globe as water is the best medium for the transfer of radioactive elements in rocks. The later assumption, decay rate, has been demonstrably shown not to be a geo-historical constant (http://creation.com...). Also, radiometric dates assigned to a given strata or rock are very selective; conflicting dates appear all the time and yet radiometric dating is still supported at solid evidence (http://creation.com...). Thanks for the lesson on what a theory is. I understand that the colloquial usage of the word does not always correspond to the definition within the framework of the scientific method. I would say though, that macro-evolution, or neo-Darwinian evolution, would not fall under this definition. Go :)