Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact.

You started off by saying "To keep it simple, a fact is something that is KNOWN to be true. Do scientists know where life came from, and how it supposedly evolved? No." Yes, yes they do, you just have refused to look at the evidence for such a thing. Do you know what inorganic compounds are? These are compounds that do not contain a covalent bond with carbon thus are non-life. Organic compounds are covalently bonded to carbon and ALL life on this earth is made of covalent carbon bonds. The reason for the chemistry lesson is that scientist have discovered, thanks to the Miller-Urey experiments and other similar experiments, inorganic compounds can become organic compounds. So take CO2. It has carbon, but it's not covalently bonded, so it is not life. We know that there is CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, and we know that earth has atmospheric pressure, temperature, and charged particles.Before life on earth, there were inorganic compounds, rocks, gases, etc...When different inorganic compounds are subject to the correct amount of pressure, temperature, and charged particles from the atmosphere, they can become organic compounds like amino acids, which I'm sure you know are the basic building blocks of life. Yes, we know that inorganic-->organic. Non-life can produce life with all natural phenomena. So we have a well backed idea of where life plausibly originated here on earth. You then said something that irritates me to no end "Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one." Wow! Scientific theories are facts and you already agree with me on that, so I shall demonstrate. Do you believe that there are microorganisms that invade our body and make us sick? Well this is a theory called "Pathogenic Theory" and guess what. This theory is a fact. There is no "Pathogenic Law". The theory is a fact. Do you believe that planets revolve around a central star in patterns called orbits? Well this is a theory called planetary theory and guess what. It's a fact. There is no "Planetary Law" the theory itself is a fact. Do you believe in plate tectonics as the explanation for earthquakes? Plate tectonics is a theory and a FACT. Evolution is just another one of these theories that are also facts. In fact, I've argued in the past, thanks to the many disciplines that confirm evolution, that the theory of evolution has more evidence than planetary theory. Then you said "You claim that similarities in DNA are proof of evolution. But are they? The answer is no." Error. I claimed that similarities in DNA are proof of common ancestry which is predicted by evolution. But yeah, the similarities are proof that we are modern apes. Seriously research "Human Chromosome 2" objectively. To save you the google search, I'll give you my paraphrase of the facts. Normal chromosomes of species have a top telomere, a centromere, and a bottom telomere. So they look like T-C-T. Every telomere and every centromere have a unique base pair sequence specific to it, kind of like fingerprints for humans. So if you found a certain base pair sequence you would know which chromosome you've found. Humans's 2nd chromosome looks like T-C-T-T-C-T. What is this? Well if you look at it, it's two chromosomes fused together. How could we determine if that's the case? The first T-C-T has the same exact base pairs as one of the ape chromosomes. The second T-C-T also has the exact base pairs of one of the ape chromosomes. Fusion of chromosomes is the definition of common ancestry. You said then "Scientists claim that the similarity between humans and chimps DNA prove that we have a common ancestor. Once again, this is false. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences." Yeah the genetic similarities between chimps and humans is about 98%. I don't care about how many millions of base pairs are different, I care about the percentage of similar genetics, and thanks to genetic sequencing we know that chimps share 98% of our genetics. Then you say "Now. On to radiometric dating. I guess you've missed all the articles written about how these dating methods really work. Many people don't know this, but the values they use for these are guesses. That's right guesses. You see, they have no way to know what the original values for the parent a daughter isotopes were. So they made a guess." Well you picked a chemistry teacher to tell that they missed articles about how radiometric dating works...anyway you're way off. Like miles off. The rate at which say potassium decays into argon is a fixed rate like the speed of light or the rate of gravity on earth. It's not a guess, it's a measurable, demonstrable fact. We know the values of the parent isotopes because we know the amount of protons each atom has and the electrons required to stabilize the nucleus, so when we find unstable forms of said protons, isotopes, we can tell by the fixed rates of decay, not guesses, how old something is. I would love to see the articles that you say prove radiometric dating is a guess. Is the number pi a guess? Do scales just guess your weight when you step on them? Or maybe, because we have already demonstrated radiometric dating, we can take something that is of known age, like a relic or some ancient item, and subject it to radiometric dating. If the dating matches with the known age, we have a system that can be used to make accurate predictions and guess what. That is the case. You finish by saying, "And, finally, we'll discuss your claim about geology. Another thing that many people are unaware of, is the fact that the Grand Canyon has several examples of multiple geologic strata that are bent. What I mean by this is that there are several layers from different geological era's stacked on top of each other, and ALL OF THEM are bent 90 degrees." I have never heard about this 90 degrees stuff, but whatever, the grand canyon has pre-cambrian rock that's over 400 million years old and all fossils that have been found on this earth have been found in the order of the layers of rock that you would expect from the predictions of evolution. You don't find old world monkey fossils in a layer on top of modern ape fossils because old world monkeys died out way before the modern apes existed. If you could demonstrate monkey on top of ape, you could win a Nobel prize, as you would change the face of evolutionary biology. Then you say, "To sum up this stage of my argument, I'll simply say that I do not dispute the evidence. I dispute the interpretation of it. And rightly so." You have no right to dispute evidence that you misrepresent. You're simply constructing straw-man arguments against evolution. The interpretation of information does not change the truth of it.