The Theory of Evolution is correct.

Yes, scientific theory is certainly different from the everyday use of the word "theory". However, the theory of evolution is not as credible as (www.notjustatheory.com) biasedly puts it. There are many problems with evolution. Even evolutionists admit that, although they loathe doing so. Your source completely denies the obvious problems with the theory of evolution but simply goes on to explain the "definition of scientific theory" before making the absurd claim that "Evolution has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations". At this point, I was admittedly laughing, to the point where I almost fell of of my chair. Our observations completely and utterly deny and refute evolution. As I have mentioned earlier, my arguments have been based highly on observational science. I will reiterate for clarity: - The fossil record completely refutes evolution and almost all educated evolutionists admit it - There is no known process by which genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code - Observational science shows that organisms lose genetic information over time, they don't gain it - It has never been observed that life has come from non life In your previous argument, you also imply that you want more scientific evidences refuting evolution, and I would certainly be willing to list them, but I don't think this debate needs to be any more detailed than it already is. I find it interesting that you don't see how the fossil record refutes evolution. The fact is, our current supply of fossils don't fit into the Darwinian time scale at all. There is a clear absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing! How difficult is it to acknowledge this? As a reference, Darwin mentioned in Origin of Species: " Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" Are your ideas false? No. But they are to a degree uneducated. You cannot simply make the assumption that mutations can "benefit" and "genetically advance" an organism. Your idea that genetic material can "duplicate, mutate, and then benefit it's the organism" is almost an impossibility. Mutations mean a scrambling of pre-existing information. There is no increase in information. It appears that the probability of meeting all of your conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. It contradicts entropy. As I mentioned earlier, the only way mutations can be beneficial is in the extraordinarily rare event of an organism losing a protein which a virus or bacteria attacks. This results in the loss/corrupt of genetic information and as such could not possibly qualify as evolution. Regarding your lizard issue, that was nothing more than environmental adaption. This is observed all of the time. It's the primary reason we have different breeds of cats/dogs etc. However, macro-evolution (the origin of new types of organisms) is nothing more than an idea, and it has never been observed. Observing changes within a kind is not a proof of evolution. It just shows variation. The 1980's Science article which summarized the conclusion of 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists who gathered together that year to decide whether microevolution can produce macroevolution: A wide spectrum of researchers' ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists"gathered at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species. " The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Sources: https://answersingenesis.org... http://thetruthwins.com... http://geekychristian.com... http://www.ucg.org...