Evolution is a THEORY not a Fact

My definition of theory: : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena this definition was retrieved from www. merriamwebster. com, and though there were several contexts in which to choose from, I feel that this is the definition I was going for when I posted this debate. And again I apologize for the confusion on the rounds as i stated earlier, I did not feel anyone would actually debate it seriously. So for the round, since round 1 has been used to clear confusion, round 2 can consist of questioning as need and if needed the presenttion of evidence and I will be backing my claims with evidence. Basically For a roadmap, I will be breaking down the four different "main" beliefs of creation, being Darwinism, Deism, Polytheism and creationism. Again these main beliefs are subject, and I am not trying to single out any religion, but if you look closely, all religions can be categorized into these four categories. For Darwinism: Sure the evolution theory seems nice and even plausable, to a degree. However there are some serious problems with its logic. What does NOT exist in Darwinism is 1) a good, coherent explanation of how life started in the first place, 2) a good, coherent explanation of why at certain points in the geological record there are explosions in variety. That just means the explanation is incomplete (and who knows, maybe the unexplained part DOES involve God pointing his finger and making something happen; but that's beyond the scope of science). It doesn't mean that Darwinist theory as it stands DOESN'T apply to much of the history of the development of life, any more than general relativity being unknown in the 1600s meant Newton's theory of gravity didn't properly describe how apples fell from trees. Another problem for example is how in this THEORY of evolution, is how it fails to explain such explosions in gene pools, such as the Cambrian explosion. . http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... If you look at this website, it has all sorts of reasons why Darwinism is wrong, however since the limit of text is relatively short, we can only scratch the service for I have 3 other beliefs to cover(: This is taken straight from the website: The Cambrian explosion About half of the major animal groups appear, fully formed, in the Cambrian strata of rocks, with out any fossilised ancestors. This is how Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, describes it: …the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as thought they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. " (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229) How do Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists explain this abrupt appearance? For evolution to be true, there must be a gap here – not just a small gap of one or two intermediate forms – but a truly massive gap of intermediates for at least 19 different phyla. Such a huge imperfection in the fossil record is the only explanation which evolutionists can give. Why such a gap should occur is not clear. Sometimes it is claimed that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian organisms were small and soft-bodied, and hence hard to fossilise. However, fossilised micro-organisms have been found in Precambrian rocks around the world, and many entirely soft-bodied animals have been found fossilised in Cambrian rocks. There does not seem to be a good reason why such a massive gap should exist. Non-evolutionists take the fossil record more at face value. Instead of hypothesising a large number of Precambrian animals for which there is no fossil evidence, they take the fossil record to show that the Cambrian animals did not evolve gradually from a common ancestor, and came into being through intelligent design. 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? It can't which is a major flaw within the context of Darwinism. I will further extend this in the other rounds, but I have to move on. On to Deism. The theory that God wound the clock, let it go, and stepped back. One main problem with this, divine intervention. Examples in our own American history completely rule this theory out! Take for example the American revolution, again I only have about 3,000 characters remaining so this will again scratch the surface until the next round. Examples, the American Revolution: If you go to this website, it has numerous examples which I cannot name due to space . http://www.cracked.com... But once you have read these examples, it becomes pretty clear that God can choose sides, He can react, and that He is not some distant being. Now some may say "coincidence" however, is it possible that EVERYTHING was a coincidence? Absolutely not if you are a logical person. On to Polytheism. This theory, starting from the beginning of time has some serious problems. First off, polytheism was prominant when man did not have technology to explain the natural world around him. In fact I found an article that goes into explicit detail of this principle: . http://www.crowdog.net... So as we see in this article, barbarians could not have any other means of explanation for the Sun, the wind, or rain etc. So they used their imagination to fulfill their need of worship. Again I will extend every one of these arguments later in the round Logically I would move on to creationism, but I would like to discuss that in a later round because I bel;ieve that my reasoning for all other types of beliefs aren't completely correlated and that my Creationism argument would not make sense yet. So as we have vaguely broken down 3 different types of belief, being Darwinism, Deism, and Polytheism. As for the argument of biased websites, I am using science as evidence not biased beliefs. I am definately looking forward to your reply(: Good Debate, and sorry for the confusion! (: