Evolution is a fact

I'll start off by apologizing. I never meant to offend you. Regardless of what you believe, I debate you out of love. It is hard, but I try to do everything out of love. First off, you said a lot of things, but only cited two sources: 1) A video that shows 9 things it claims are wrong with creationism. 2) A link that talks about scientific theory. First I will address the two numbers above, then cite the problems in stating that Evolution is a fact. 1) This video does nothing to prove evolution is a fact, all it does it point out the problems with Creationism. If you want to debate Creationism, invite me for that debate. 2) It still never states it as a fact. Like you said, it is plausible due to scientific theory. However, it is never stated as a fact. You can't call it a fact, just because it fits well with your theory. It doesn't matter if scientific-theory has more evidence to support it, it is still, not a fact. Lets me show you an example - Heliocentrism. "Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. ". It was a common scientific theory with evidence to support it's claim, however, it turned out not to be true. It was not a fact, it was just a theory. Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now I am going to bring up additional points to show the flaws in Evolution. 1) The argument made by a famous scientists know as Richard Dawkins is that we come from a common ancestor of a monkey. My question is, if this is true, how come there is no evidence of it whatsoever? Even if you claim it is thousands of years old, it would have fossilized, would it not? There would be some sort of proof of it's skeletal structure, or something. To quote from the web-page, "At each point Dawkins attempts to infer, from molecular and fossil evidence, the probable form of the most recent common ancestor and describes the modern animals that join humanity's growing travelling party". The key word is "probable". There is no guarantee. In addition, the only fossils that have been found, are not guarantees. We just assume they may be, we are not certain. The web-page states, "This means that, in terms of inquiry into the course of possible human evolution / the origins of our species, the Ardi fossil has displaced Lucy as being from the earliest "reliably known about" possible close human ancestor species.". The fossil found, as well as the previous one, do not prove anything. They can infer, but it is not 100% proof. Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.age-of-the-sage.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) It has never been witnessed. There is no evidence of evolution. Metamorphosis can occur, which is different as we know, but evolution has not. 3) There is the claim that we came from one old ancestor "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago.". It also states it as a fact, which I find interesting from Wikipedia when the next paragraph shows it is just a theory. Anyways, this is impossible. The reason I say this is because of logic. We have had humans around and documenting existence for thousands of years. Have we evolved at all yet? We still have some parts on our body that modern time we see as "useless". For example, the tailbone, or the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc. Many of these things get removed from people, or are seen as useless because they are never used. If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago? Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... To summarize the above, it is just a theory. Moreover, there is lots of evidence that is not guaranteed proof, as well as there is evidence suggesting Evolution is false. Therefore, it cannot be stated as a fact.