Evolution is a THEORY not a Fact

"My definition of theory" Stop right there. There is no "my" "your" "their" or "our" definition of anything, if you want to to post a definition, use a dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com... "noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. " "Basically For a roadmap, I will be breaking down the four different "main" beliefs of creation, being Darwinism, Deism, Polytheism and creationism" Deism, Polytheism and Creationism are the same thing with different names. Actually Polytheism in and of itself is not a creation theory, more like a belief in multiple deites which at some point may have coughed on one another and created the universe as a result. http://en.wikipedia.org... <-- Wikipedia Article on Polytheism "1) a good, coherent explanation of how life started in the first place," That's because that's not the focus of Darwin's theory of evolution, but considering how apparanty uninformed you are, I'll bite. http://en.wikipedia.org... Bacteria and single cell organisms make up some 90% of life on the earth, and wherever there is water, single celled organisms can exist. How did these organisms come about? Well the current explanation is that about 4000 million years ago, as the earth cooled from what was basically it's creation, numerous chemical reactions took place to shape basis of the various compounds and chemicals that would create the earth we live on. One of these compounds was RNA or ribonucleic acid. RNA had, as part of it's makeup, extremely simple characteristics that were defined by it's surroundings, effectively creating the first genome. ") a good, coherent explanation of why at certain points in the geological record there are explosions in variety." This could be blamed on a multitude of things, a shift in the climate of the immediate region, a natural disaster wiping out predecessing creatures in such a way that doesn't leave fossils (remember that not everything that's died has ever left a fossil), or perhaps even natural selection making a leap and creating variations of the same creature. (Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, anyone?) Besides which, your point has one massive hole. It presumes that our knowledge of extinct creatures is absolute, and that we're guaranteed to find complete fossils of everything. Not only is this probably not the case, we don't even know if it is or not. This is no different than me saying Creationism is wrong because we never found fossil of the serpant from the Garden of Eden. "If you look at this website" Are you serious? Ignoring for a second their lacking understanding about evolution, which is laughable considering the context in which you present it as a source, this is a website that, presumably with a straight face, has an article entitled "Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?" It also has an article entitled "Compulsory evolution in primary schools" the very title of which debunks your little THEORY of evolution being taught as fact in schools. "So as we see, this wide arrange of species just seemed to come out of no where! How can Darwinism, the theory that it takes 10s to 20 millions of years for a species to transfrom, explain the fact that out of nowhere bout 10,000 new types of species just dissapeared, with no generic link to existing species" Now you're repeating your points. Bad show. See above. "On to Deism. The theory that God wound the clock, let it go, and stepped back." Isn't that different in purpose to the theory of creationism, and even if it was, is a strawman because it has nothing to do with Evolution. "On to Polytheism." Also has nothing to do with Evolution. Strawman. Moving on. "As for the argument of biased websites, I am using science as evidence not biased beliefs." Here's a hint, using a website with biased beliefs that talks about science doesn't count as not using biased beliefs. "So as we have vaguely broken down 3 different types of belief, being Darwinism, Deism, and Polytheism." What's this "we" rubbish? Oh, and your entire post assumes a laughable consistency over the course of thousands of millions of years, an almost typical selective ignorance of the workings of natural selection, and the assumption that mankind has already discovered everything there is to be discovered and knows everything there is to know. Since I'm in thinking-ahead mode I'd like to misquote Shakespeare in reference to your "Polytheism, Deism and Creationism are all different" non-point and say that a rose by any other name is still a horrible horrible attempt at disguising preference to the God-did-it THEORY.