Elsewhere you speak of your "logic". It seems sadly lacking here in your response. I don't think you should believe in evolution just because you have it explained to you what scientists mean when they use the words "fact", "observation", "theory", and "law". The actual evidence that sustains the theory is what counts.
But at least you can stop using the word theory in its non-scientific "wild-assed-guess" sense when referring to the theory of evolution. As in "It is just a theory". Or "your THEORY". Or "Let me know when it has become a law". You are long past the point where such rejoinders have become dishonest. Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it. Equally well it is your right to reject germ theory, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity. But don't pretend that scientific theories are weak wishy-washy things that can be handwaved away because "they are just theories".
Yes, But that does not mean evolution is FACT, regardless of the scientific meaning of theory. Since science can not demonstrate this "theory" in action and as suggested in highschool textbooks, as many so-called facts have been proven to be bogus, agandized science can not parade evo as something that has or is happening.
The absolute absudity of a fish evolving into a man is not only ludicrous, it defies logic...especially when the scientific method is used to test the theory.
Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it.
I only fully reject the conclusion of evolution based on the so-called evidence which agendized science says sustains the cult's beliefs.